Sitting of 21 November 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  STANDARD CHARTERED MERCHANT BANK BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many dwellings were (a) sold and (b) completed by local authorities in 1981, 1982 and 1983 at the latest available date.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Welsh local authorities sold 8,501 dwellings in 1981, 15,134 in 1982, and 5,327 to the end of June 1983. The figures for completions in the same periods were 3,370, 1,771 and 837, respectively.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that that shameful picture shows that only a small proportion of the houses that have been sold are being replaced, and that Thursday's economic statement is likely to mean that virtually all house building is likely to dry up in Wales? Are not the Government responsible for those who do not have the financial resources to buy their own houses—single-parent families, and others?
    Mr. Roberts: The priority that local authorities give to new building is entirely a matter for them. By the end of the second quarter of this year the hon. Gentleman's local authority had spent 20 per cent. of its capital expenditure on new build. The hon. Gentleman neglects the fact that the private sector supplies dwellings and that private sector starts were 33 per cent. up last year on the year before.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that now is the appropriate time to give extra financial aid to local authorities to build more council houses?
    Mr. Roberts: I repeat that new building is a matter for local authorities, but they have not given a high priority to new build. New house building has been in decline for a number of years, and there was a considerable decline during the period of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that his answer demonstrates the immense popularity of the right to buy in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. There is no doubt whatever about the popularity of the right to buy among secure tenants who wish to buy their public sector houses. About 33,000 public sector houses have been sold to secure tenants since October 1980.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: The figures show that in some areas twice as many houses have been sold than have been built by local authorities—indeed, more than that in some areas. In view of the increasing numbers of people on the waiting lists—people who could not hope to buy houses and therefore have to rent—what proposals do the Government have to replace the rented stock?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends make that point 'with what I can only call monumental monotony. It is not true that houses are lost when they are sold to secure tenants. The people who buy them would have remained as tenants. Now they are owner-occupiers. The building of new houses is a matter for local authorities.

    United States Companies
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies he visited during his recent

    3
    visit to the United States of America; and which of those companies are seriously considering locating in Wales, in Clwyd and in Delyn, respectively.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): During my visit to the United States in September I had extensive discussions with company representatives and made a number of company visits. Some of those I met are considering Wales as a location for new investment. I do not believe that it is helpful to give full details in these circumstances, but I can say that among those companies are several that are considering plans for development on Deeside.
    Mr. Raffan: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reticence to go into great detail, but will he confirm that those American companies that expressed an interest in Wales are attracted not just by the British home market but by the much wider European Community market? Does he agree that if we are to take seriously the protestations of Labour Members about jobs, they must reject unconditionally their policy of withdrawal from Europe, because such a policy would drive away foreign companies, destroy thousands of existing jobs in Wales and prevent the creation of many new ones?
    Mr. Edwards: In almost every case—if not in every case—the prime consideration was access to the entire European market, not just to the United Kingdom market. Most of those companies consider it important to have separate research and development establishments here because of the separate and differing needs of the European market compared with the United States market.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many foreign as well as British firms would be more likely to put new facilities into Wales if he could persuade his Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Transport to announce the Government's plans for a second crossing of the River Severn? Does he further agree that that would be the overall morale booster that Wales requires?
    Mr. Edwards: I have little to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said last week, when he made it clear that the Government recognise the vital importance of the Severn crossing to south Wales. He also made it clear that he was assessing the technical recommendations that he had received, together with the future needs of south Wales, and that we must decide on the strengthening of the present bridge at the same time as reaching decisions about the need for a future bridge. My right hon. Friend said that he hoped to make a statement about both issues in the relatively near future.

    Rate Support Grant
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the Welsh rate support grant report 1984–85.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I hope to publish the Welsh rate support grant report for 1984–85 on 20 December.
    Dr. Marek: If, as seems likely, local government becomes less and less like local government as practised in Western democracies and more and more like local government as practised in the Soviet Union, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that he publishes the rate support grant details not as he did last summer, one day after we
    4
    went into recess, and not as he is proposing now, probably one day before we go into recess, but at least a week before so that we may have a proper debate on the proposals? If, as he said, building houses is entirely a matter for local authorities, will he increase the capital allocations so that local authorities can build the houses?
    Mr. Edwards: I answered a parliamentary question on Friday in which I set out the proposals on which I am now consulting local government, and they set out the Government's present intentions. We have a consultation process and I must complete that process. I hope that I shall be able to complete it to meet the deadline that I named. It is extremely important that we carry it through. It is also important to give the information to local authorities as early as possible—I am anxious to do that before Christmas—so as to give them a final indication of the spending position for next year.
    Mr. Hooson: In making his forward plans for the coming year, will my right hon. Friend ensure that consultation takes place with the Association of Local Authorities in Wales to ensure that some of the more out of date and irrelevant factors in the formula for allocations are reviewed?
    Mr. Edwards: I assure my hon. Friend, as I have assured him on previous occasions when he has asked similar questions, that these matters are kept under review. They have been reviewed during the course of consultation in the current year. Inevitably the formulae are arrived at as a compromise between the differing needs and views of various local authorities in Wales. I do not think that we have the balance too far out at the moment.
    Mr. Terlezki: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on the whole, the Welsh authorities have responded well to the rate support grant settlement, and that, should it continue, that co-operation will have a beneficial effect on industrial and ordinary ratepayers in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree that Welsh local government has come close to achieving the targets that we set last year, and I hope that it will do so again this year. The fact that the majority of local authorities did so last year shows that the targets are achievable. I am sure that Welsh local government understands the need to keep down rate settlements in the interests of both industry and ratepayers.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Secretary of State take into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said and the representations that have been made by local authorities in Wales, namely, that the proposals in the White Paper on the future of rates are looked on by them as a great threat to local decision-making and democracy?
    Mr. Edwards: I have taken note of the views of local government in Wales on this issue. I must also consider the views, expressed forcefully, of industry and ratepayers, and take note of the fact that, under the proposals. that we have just put to local government, 69 per cent. of local authority expenditure will come from the general taxpayer, not the local ratepayer.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of the grants allocated to Wales from the European regional development fund in the past 12 months.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Forty-four million pounds.
    Mr. Knox: How much in total has Wales received from the fund since its inception in 1975?
    Mr. Edwards: The ERDF alone has brought in about £199 million, but if one takes the total of identifiable grants and loans from the European Community as a whole, it is well over £1 billion. In fact, it is about £1·123 million in total.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: As Wales is among the poorest of the regions in the EC, does the Secretary of State accept the need not only for a radical reform of the EC budget, but to divert money into the regional development fund, hopefully for the future benefit of the Principality?
    Mr. Edwards: We must watch the total spending of the Community as well as the way in which it is distributed, but obviously it would be in the interests of Wales to see more of the total budget spent on regional policies of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman than on existing priorities.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the Minister agree that his time would be better spent protecting the industries of Wales, particularly those that are reeling as a result of the harmonisation of industry directives in Europe, such as what happened at Chicopee, with the consequent loss of thousands of jobs to Wales in recent years, than scrambling about in America for vague promises of new industries to fulfil the demands of the European market?
    Mr. Edwards: The vague promises of new industries to which the hon. Gentleman refers are, in fact, an all-time record number of factory allocations this year—about 1·5 million sq ft of Government factory space allocated—and a record number of selective financial assistance applications for new jobs. They are all solid proposals and represent an important diversification and strengthening of the Welsh economy.

    Advance Factories
    Mr. Mark Robinasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many advance factories have been (a) built and (b) allocated in Wales since May 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Since May 1979, 1,320 advance factories have been completed by the Welsh Development Agency, Cwmbran development corporation and the Development Board for Rural Wales, providing more than 7 million sq ft of new industrial space. The total amount of space available is 3·5 million sq ft, which is about 15 per cent. of the total stock; 1,124 factories—6·9 million sq ft of space—have been allocated since May 1979.
    Mr. Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer. Does he agree that it demonstrates the continuing success of his policy of trying to attract new industries to Wales and, in particular, the growing confidence of industry in the region?
    Mr. Edwards: It is encouraging that, after last year's record factory allocation in Wales, the figures are again significantly up this year and that the potential number of jobs to be created in these factories is strikingly up.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State assure the people of Wales that when attempting to promote
    6
    employment in these new advance factories he will dissociate himself from the recent view expressed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that areas of high unemployment should be areas where low wages are paid?
    Mr. Edwards: Relative wage rates undoubtedly affect the prosperity of individual companies and, therefore, the attractions of a particular area; but there is also a wide variety of other factors, including infrastructure, the availability of skills and so on. All those factors will be set out in the White Paper on regional policy which the Government intend to publish. There will be plenty of opportunities for individuals and organisations to express views on the weight to be attached to those factors.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: How many of those advance factories have been let to those operating in the service industries in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot immediately give an answer to that question. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is now the policy to provide space for the service sector on WDA industrial parks. An increasing number of these factories and units are being taken by the service sector. Many of them provide more jobs than would be provided by comparable industrial manufacturing concerns.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Do not these figures give us some reason for hope, as they tend to demonstrate that an increasing number of companies from this country and overseas are seeing the advantages of settling in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: I think that they are encouraging. For example, applications received since January for selective financial assistance are associated with about 12,000 new jobs. Not all of those will come to a successful conclusion, but they are significant figures and represent an increase of about 35 per cent. on the comparable figures for the same time last year.
    Mr. Rowlands: So that we can put these figures in perspective, will the right hon. Gentleman say how many factories have been closed and how many jobs have been lost since May 1979?
    Mr. Edwards: About 400 factories have been surrendered. I made it clear in my answer that we had a significant amount—about: 15 per cent.—of vacant factory space. I was careful to give both sides of the figures. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an immediate answer about the number of jobs, but he will be aware that unemployment has risen during that time. However, it is important to note that, during a period of major industrial restructuring, we have been attracting such a large number of new companies, including companies involved in the new technologies.

    Wyndham Western Colliery
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board as soon as possible to discuss the proposed closure of the Wyndham western colliery, Ogmore, the position of other collieries in south Wales and the effect on employment in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I shall be meeting Mr. MacGregor on 6 December and expect to discuss with him a wide range of matters relating to the coal industry.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the south Wales NUM is meeting Ian MacGregor tomorrow?

    7
    Will he send an urgent message to Ian MacGregor to allow investment for the Wyndham western colliery—at least on a short-term basis—to save 500 jobs, to open up the coalfield at the Margam mine on a long-term basis and to stop treating south Wales as the Cinderella of the British coal industry?
    Mr. Edwards: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, on 23 September the National Coal Board announced that it proposed to close the Wyndham western pit, which has lost about £19 million in three years. Tomorrow the National Coal Board is to consider proposals put forward by the union to exploit reserves to the south of the existing mine. It is for the National Coal Board to assess those proposals, and it will be going through the normal consultation procedure tomorrow.
    Again, it is the responsibility of the National Coal Board to decide whether Margam is a sensible project in which to invest funds. I am delighted to say that this year there has been a substantial increase in the money allocated to seeking new reserves in south Wales. In the current year about £20 million is going towards new investment in the south Wales field.
    Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the considerable investment by the National Coal Board in surveying and prospecting in the south Wales coalfields? Does not the future lie more in opening new anthracite reserves than in sustaining worked out pits?
    Mr. Edwards: I welcome the fact that the National Coal Board is spending £1·2 million—about 14 per cent. of its exploration budget—this year in the search for new anthracite reserves in a coalfield that produces about 7 per cent. of total output.
    Mr. Grist: Will my right hon. Friend estimate how many jobs have been safeguarded, how many have been created, and how many pits have been saved by the current NUM ban on overtime?
    Mr. Edwards: It is certainly not the way to save pits. I understand that the south Wales miners are losing substantial sums of money for every day that the dispute continues, so it is not helping the miners either.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what further discussions have been held concerning regional aid for Wales: what was the outcome; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will shortly be publishing a White Paper on future regional policy.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that if there is any deterioration in the position of south Wales compared with the south west, the midlands and the south east of England, that, together with all the difficulties over the Severn bridge, will turn south Wales into a twilight area? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot win the argument with his Cabinet colleagues on these basic issues, why does he not resign? At least then the people of Wales would realise that he had tried.
    Mr. Edwards: One of the reasons why these discussions about regional policy are taking place is that people in the west midlands and other parts of England
    8
    have been complaining strongly that south Wales has been doing rather well. One of the things that we shall be discussing in the White Paper is the whole range of regional policies, as they are applied, and all the proposals and suggestions being put forward by the trade unions and others about the ways in which they can be improved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper will not contain proposals for altering the balance between regions. The White Paper will cover a wide range of proposals and there will be a long period of consultation before we get to decisions on it.
    Mr. James Callaghan: The Secretary of State will be aware of the strenuous efforts being made to reverse the decision to close the Rover works at Cardiff with the loss of about 600 jobs. As part of regional policy, if that should occur, will the right hon. Gentleman look favourably on the proposals being put forward by a consortium in Glamorgan and south Wales for the establishment of a free port in Cardiff, which could provide at least some extra jobs?
    Mr. Edwards: The loss of jobs at Rover will be a severe blow to Cardiff and to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. I assure him that the most careful consideration is being given to the proposals for free ports, including the one from Cardiff, but we are still at an early stage in our consideration of the free port proposals. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the redevelopment of south Cardiff, on which I am working closely with the local authorities concerned on the basis of the initiative that I announced last February, will also help to provide new jobs and better opportunities in Cardiff.
    Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any changes that are made are not carried out in the brutal, vicious and sudden way that the Labour Government withdrew the regional employment premium in 1976?
    Mr. Edwards: We are entering a considerable period of consultation based on a White Paper on subjects that have already been discussed by the NEDC and other bodies. The Government have no intention of removing an important regional aid overnight without warning, which is what the Labour Government did.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what subjects were discussed when he last met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission committee for Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: We reviewed progress on a wide range of the commission's responsibilities and activities within Wales.
    Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission in Wales, will he raise with him a report that was recently published by the Low Pay Unit suggesting that in about 5 per cent. of all vacancies being advertised the wages are below the legal minimum, as established by the wages councils? Will he undertake to conduct a survey of all jobcentres in Wales to determine the extent of this practice and to make his findings public?
    Mr. Edwards: I shall be meeting the commission's committee for Wales on 9 December, and I shall put that point and ask the committee for its views.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a little more flexibility might enable the MSC's job creation programmes to achieve even better results? I refer particularly to the social survey that has been operated by the Colwyn borough council, which had to be broken off midway because it ran into the 12-month barrier.
    Mr. Edwards: I shall discuss that point of detail also with the committee for Wales.

    Rates
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities in Wales on his proposals for controlling the level of rates.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have received representations from 18 local authorities in Wales, the two Welsh local authority associations, and the National Association of Local Councils, which represents some of the community councils in Wales. They all oppose the Government's proposals for limiting rate increases.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be general support in Wales for efforts to limit the ever-mounting rate burden? Will he continue his consultations with local authorities to endeavour to amend these proposals to ensure that they do not penalise those local authorities that have done their best to contain local expenditure but have found themselves committed in some respects to higher expenditure because that was not fully provided for in the White Paper?
    Mr. Edwards: I hope that the proposed legislation to control rates will not have to be applied in Wales. We should be able to avoid that measure if Welsh local authorities continue to act responsibly and keep down their rate increases. I have now started the process of consultations with the local authorities on the specific proposals for the settlement in the coming financial year. During that period of consultation I shall be listening carefully to local authorities.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give careful consideration to the letter that he has received from Mr. M. H. Phillips, the secretary of the Welsh Counties Committee, who expressed his profound concern about the rate limitation proposals in the Government's White Paper, which he feels is the most serious threat that local government and democracy have faced for a long time? Will he try to talk some sense into his monetarist Cabinet colleagues to see whether they will have second thoughts?
    Mr. Edwards: I always give the most careful consideration to letters that I receive from Mr. Phillips, and from those who have to shoulder the rate burden.

    Tourism
    Mr. Terlezkiasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the total expenditure by tourists in Wales in 1982.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): The Welsh Tourist Board's estimate is £475 million.
    Mr. Terlezki: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that encouraging figure. I am pleased at the amount that has been spent in Wales during the past year.
    10
    However, as there is room for improvement, what does the Minister feel needs to be done by the Wales Tourist Board to ensure a steady flow of tourism in the Principality, year in, year out?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The board has recently published its programme strategy for growth. There are many proposals in that strategy to increase the flow of tourists into Wales, and these will always be welcome.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Is the Minister aware that one of the prime tourist attractions in Wales is Caerphilly castle? Is he aware that, through his Department, he has direct responsibility for this castle? Is he further aware that the grounds and moat of Caerphilly castle are a disgrace?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: New proposals for dealing with castles and historic buildings generally have just been put forward, and I hope that we can achieve improvements to attract more tourists to Caerphilly.
    Mr.Ioan Evans: Does the Minister agree that a large number of tourists in Wales arrive not by rail, but via the Severn bridge? Will the Government make a categorical statement that during their discussions they will support a second crossing of the Severn and that we shall not have any double-crossing by Ministers?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I assure the House that there will be no double-crossing by any Minister. We shall ascertain all of the facts. Our wish is to do the best that we can for the whole of Wales.

    Secondary Schools (Teaching Standards)
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the standard of teaching in secondary schools in Wales.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: While I am broadly satisfied with the standard of teaching in secondary schools in Wales, I have no doubt that there is always room for improvement. The Government's proposals to improve teaching quality are set out in the White Paper "Teaching Quality"—Cmnd. 8836—presented last March.
    Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware of the criticism by Her Majesty's inspectorate of low teacher expectation in much of the state sector, particularly in respect of the education of girls? This is an aspect that should be looked at seriously.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: We are aware that there is a problem to do with under-achievement. We have published a series of occasional papers, beginning last year with "Planning for Progress", aimed at helping schools and authorities to evaluate their arrangements and improve the quality of the education offered to boys and girls alike.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister satisfied with the standard of teaching in Welsh bilingual secondary schools?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: If I were satisfied I should not be discharging my responsibilities if I were to let matters remain as they are. There is always room for improvement, and there is a broad range of proposals to improve quality generally.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve road safety in Wales.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The trunk road programme, including the provision of bypasses, makes the major contribution to improving road safety. In addition the Government are seeking to improve personal safety. We continue to support the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and a number of road safety education and training measures.
    Mr. Hooson: These policies are all useful. Will my hon. Friend say whether he is doing anything to promote consciousness of road safety rules among children?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am happy to tell the House that we recently had the finals of the Welsh inter-school road safety quiz, which were televised by HTV. I believe that my hon. Friend presented the prizes, and they were well received.

    Housing Stock
    Mr. GarethWardell asked the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department is undertaking any studies to assess the impact on the quality of Welsh housing stock consequent upon the reduction of the 90 per cent. grant levels for home improvement grants.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The impact of this special measure, which has been understood from the beginning to apply for a limited period only, is already clear from the fact that more than 100,000 applications for renovation grants have been made since it was announced. On the assumption that the majority of these will be approved, I am confident that the effects on the housing stock will be clearly reflected in the results of the next Welsh house condition survey.
    Mr. Wardell: As the Minister did not say whether he intends to pursue any studies into this matter or into the appalling state of housing stock in Wales, will he tell the House the reason for cutting this rate of improvement grant?
    Mr. Roberts: From the outset it was made clear that this was a temporary measure. It was subsequently extended. There has never been any doubt in anyone's mind that the measure will come to an end on 31 March next year. I take this opportunity to make clear what we intend by the cut-off at the end of next March. It is a cut-off date for the receipt of applications. Thereafter, payments for these applications will continue at the 90 per cent. rate.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my hon. Friend welcome the record number of applications for improvement grants that have been and are still being made? Will he urge local authorities to take steps within their own administrations to speed up the processing of grants?
    Mr. Roberts: I understand that 29,000 grants have so far been approved but not paid. The value of those grants is between £85 million and £90 million, of which about £50 million is likely to be paid before 31 March next year. It is a matter for local authorities to decide the priority that they give to improvement, and repair grants. Special measures have been taken to enable them to deal with the flood of applications this year. For example, we have agreed that if more than 50 per cent. of their allocation is spent on improvement grants this year the amount above 50 per cent. will be met by the Government.
    Mr. Rowlands: In what world is the hon. Gentleman living? Does he not realise that almost every local authority has had to freeze grant payments, that many householders have been left in chaos and that cowboy builders have come in as a result of the policy? Is he aware that local authorities are being asked to continue accepting applications when everyone knows that there is no money to pay the grants? Will he call a summit meeting of all the authorities that are having difficulties to see whether the problems can be resolved, instead of coming to the House with silly points?
    Mr. Roberts: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not perpetuate the confusion in many people's minds. I repeat that the applications should be received by 31 March next year. They can be processed, approved and paid as local authorities find that they have the money to meet the requirements.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that on a matter of such importance to Wales, in which Plaid Cymru has expressed a lively interest and indeed put down a question, neither Plaid Cymru Member is present for Welsh Question Time today?
    Mr. Roberts: I am indeed astonished——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

    Bypasses
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has so far been made in bypassing urbanised centres in Wales; what other methods he plans for the diversion of very heavy vehicles from cities, towns and large villages; and what discussions he has had with highway authorities in the Principality about these matters.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: There are frequent discussions between the Welsh Office and local highway authorities about highway matters.
    Since May 1979 eight communities on trunk roads have been relieved of through traffic by the provision of bypasses or other trunk road improvements. These include Carmarthen and Llanfair PG bypasses, which have been opened in the past few months. Further bypasses are under construction and planned. As regards other roads, local authorities in Wales were reminded of the powers that they have to control and ameliorate the effects of heavy lorries on the environment of our towns and villages.
    Sir Raymond Gower: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, in view of the size of many vehicles, this matter should continue to enjoy the highest priority?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall do all that I can to help.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Minister bear in mind the need to increase traffic on the railways? Does he agree that the heavy traffic that is causing problems on the Severn bridge and elsewhere could be diverted to the railways if the Government adopted a policy of encouragement and investment for the railways?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: That may be true in some instances, but the growth in lorries has led to great

    13
    changes, and for many small towns and villages there is no alternative to the policy that the Government are now pursuing.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Allan Rogersasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of local government aid to the coal industry in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: That is a matter for individual local authorities. Detailed information is not available centrally.
    Mr. Rogers: Is it not strange that the south Wales coal industry should have to compete with European Community industries, which are heavily subsidised by local government?
    Mr. Edwards: Under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 local authorities have power to assist industry. My consent is not required. The coal industry may also benefit from other social and economic assistance provided generally by local authorities.

    Building Industry
    Mr. Gwilym Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the types and numbers of the vacancies for craftsmen in the building industry in Cardiff.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 2 September 1983, the latest date or which information is available, notified vacancies remaining unfilled for the Cardiff travel-to-work area totalled 63, including 44 in the Cardiff employment office area. The occupations concerned were carpenters and joiners, painters and decorators, plasterers, plumbers and pipe-fitters, mains and service layers and pipe-joiners, bricklayers and masons and electricians.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he share my concern about whether enough training is being provided to produce such craftsmen, especially with regard to his own initiative for the redevelopment of south Cardiff?
    Mr. Edwards: I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission in Wales, following its discussions with the Construction Industry Training Board, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the Federation of Master Builders, that the industry itself sees no discernible shortages in the immediate future.

    School Meals
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the extent to which the use of textured vegetable protein has displaced animal meat in school meals in Wales in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I am sorry to say that this information is not collected centrally.

    Chirk and Ruabon (Bypass)
    Mr. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will give urgent priority to the construction and completion of the Chirk and Ruabon bypass on the A5.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: We are proceeding with both of these schemes as quickly as resources will allow. The draft compulsory purchase order for the Ruabon
    14
    scheme was published on 26 October 1983 and currently work is scheduled to start in the autumn of 1985. Preparation work on the Chirk bypass is continuing.
    Mr. Harvey: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he prepared to say that, as soon as resources allow, the A5, which is one of the most dangerous and congested roads in the United Kingdom, will be improved further?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: As my hon. Friend knows, I am fully aware of the problems. I shall certainly keep the road under constant review.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Catering Staff
    Mr. Greenwayasked the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many members of the House catering staff are chefs, full or part-time; how many are waiters and waitresses; how these figures compare with 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Beith: The Refreshment Department currently employs 56 chefs of all grades and 63 waiting staff. These figures include both full-time and part-time staff. Ten years ago the comparable figures were 39 chefs and 60 waiting staff.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind the very high standards of service given by the chefs and waiting staff of the House, and the increase in their number in the past 10 years, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the standard of food served to Members is commensurate with the high standard of performance and the increase in numbers?
    Mr. Beith: The increase in numbers dates mainly from the introduction of the dual shift system in 1977. I am generally a very satisfied customer of the Dining Rooms of the House, but responsibility for what they serve is a matter for the Services Committee.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Commission consider creating more jobs for waiters and waitresses by allowing visitors, whom most Members receive, to partake of refreshments in the Dining Room or in a special dining room provided for the purpose?
    Mr. Beith: Again, that is a matter for the Services Committee. The Commission's duty is to ensure that the Refreshment Department has the necessary staff to carry out its responsibilities.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it not slightly mischievous of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to congratulate the chefs and then to criticise the food? Will the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) point out to everyone—those who read Hansard as well as those present today—that Members of Parliament pay the economic rate for their meals?
    Mr. Beith: That is so, and it is borne out by the healthy trading profit that the Refreshment Department normally manages to produce. The Commission will be seeking from the Department targets for its future pricing policy and capital investment, bearing in mind the success that it has achieved so far.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Canavanasked the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, whether the Commission will arrange to meet trade union representatives of employees of the House.
    Mr. Beith: In the view of the Commission, negotiations and consultations are normally best conducted by representatives of management and staff within established channels.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the legitimate concern about the fact that a staff inspector was appointed before his terms of reference were agreed with the unions, may we have a guarantee that the same thing will not happen in relation to the new appointment of an internal auditor? When is that appointment likely to be made and will the auditor's duties extend in any way to Members as well as to staff?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission has not completed its consideration of the internal audit procedures, in particular of those aspects which relate mainly to the Refreshment Department rather than to the direct concerns of Members of Parliament. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's representation's to the Commission. I understand that the staff inspector is working in close co-operation with trade unions.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When the Commission has consultations with the trade unions side, will it make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the business of Parliament is paramount and that we expect no repetition of past events in terms of industrial action being taken against this place?
    Mr. Beith: It is the view of most right hon. and hon. Members, and in the interests of the trade unions, that the business of the House should proceed without interruption. That view has been loyally supported by the staff who work in the House. Constructive negotiations to ensure that it remains the case are proceeding.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Funding
    Mr. Proctorasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts, whether Her Majesty's Government will make it their policy to change the balance of funding for the arts from public to private sources.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): No, Sir. The Government expect to maintain the real level of public spending on the arts and we expect that private funding will provide an increasingly important supplement.
    Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is great scope for entrepreneurial initiative in the arts, especially as it will help save the taxpayer expense in certain circumstances?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree that there is an extremely important role for private sponsorship and entrepreneur-ship in the arts. That role has been growing recently.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: How does the Minister's answer affect the problem that will occur when, as is proposed, the metropolitan counties and the GLC are abolished, as they contribute more than £11 million in arts funding?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows that my noble Friend has published a list of some large organisations that will get additional central funding. Moreover, there will be an opportunity and a need for district and borough councils to do their bit to help organisations in the future.
    Mr. Crouch: Although I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend hears no Philistine voice saying that the Government should reduce support for the arts, would it not be valuable if the Government could give some financial encouragement to private art patrons so that the arts can receive more than the Government are able to afford?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is one of the Select Committee's recommendations, to which the Government will reply in due course. My noble Friend has been able to secure a modest but valuable increase in real terms in public arts spending for next year. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister's noble Friend had any discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to introducing tax concessions for private industry and commerce that funds the arts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There have been discussions within and between Departments on the Select Committee's recommendations, but we have not yet produced our final response to it.
    Mr. Cormick: When can we expect that response to the Select Committee's report? Will the Minister bear in mind that the Select Committee made several recommendations and that it underlined two facts? First, the arts have always been subsidised, whether by a German prince or, as in Britain now, by the state. Secondly, the arts are responsible for bringing vast sums of money to Britain via tourism.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government will respond to the Select Committee's report in a small number of months. Arts charities already benefit from relatively generous arrangements. However, I do not wish in any way to pre-empt my noble Friend's answer to the Select Committee.
    Mr. Radice: With regard to the abolition of the metropolitan counties, is the Minister really convinced that the £11 million can be made up by private or district funding?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are consulting on these matters. Taking into account the money that will be moved from the metropolitan counties to the districts and boroughs in grant-related expenditure assessments, there is no reason why arts organisations that are well based in their communities should not win support.

    Elgin Marbles
    Sir David Priceasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts, what reasons the Greek Government have given to Her Majesty's Government in support of their request that the Elgin marbles should be handed over to them without payment; and what has been Her Majesty's Government's reply.
    Mr. Murphyasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts, if he will make a statement on the request by the Greek Government for the return of the Elgin marbles.
    Mr. Waldegrave: A formal request for the return of the Elgin marbles was made by the Greek ambassador on 12 October. It will, of course, receive careful consideration. As my noble Friend said in Parliament recently, the Government are aware of no general wish to change the existing powers of the British museum's trustees, and do not propose to seek authority to do so.
    Sir David Price: Will my hon. Friend and the Government remind the Greek Government that—no Elgin, no marbles, no British museum no marbles? Will he also remind them that the present level of sulphur dioxide in the Athenian atmosphere is as destructive of what remains of the Parthenon as was the Venetian gunfire, the Turkish gunpowder, and the plunderers and marauders—the Greek people themselves—on the remains of the Parthenon in the past?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can only add one group to my hon. Friend's conprehensive list of those who have damaged the Parthenon—perhaps the worst of all were those who converted it into a church in 450 AD. As I understand it, the Greek Government have not proposed replacing the marbles on the Parthenon if they were to be returned. They would have to be kept in a museum in Athens.
    Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the emotion that is being shown demonstrates that, in more ways than one, the Greeks have lost their marbles? Does he agree that it would be more helpful if the Greek Government appreciated the realistic and legal approach that Lord Elgin adopted towards these valuable marbles?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government will, of course, give the Greek Government's request serious consideration.
    Mr. Foot: Does the Minister agree that the supplementary questions that have been asked by Conservative Members merely add insult to the injuries that have been inflicted on us all? Is he able to recall that the circumstances and the manner in which the so-called Elgin marbles were taken from Greece were bitterly denounced at the time by most leading English people, headed by Lord Byron? Is he further aware that Lord Byron pronounced a terrible curse on those who were engaged in the transaction? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the Government will seriously examine the proposition that has been made by a friendly, democratic country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Lord Byron may have been against it, but the right hon. Gentleman doubtless knows that a Select Committee which looked into the matter believed that the marbles had been acquired legally. What my hon. Friends say is doubted by few—if the marbles had not been taken away they would have been more seriously damaged.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend repudiate the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent
    18
    (Mr. Foot) that injuries were inflicted, when the fact is that Britain saved the marbles after many years of neglect, decay and dilapidation? Does he agree that they were deteriorating under many centuries of Greek rule as well as under Turkish rule?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that there is any disagreement between the British Government and the Greek Government about the danger that the marbles were in at that time.
    Mr. Faulds: To take this matter seriously, does the Minister not consider that it might be time to accept that there is an argument in Third world countries and others that a limited range of objects should be returned? Is it not likely that if we in the West do not draw up a limited range of objects for restitution, we shall eventually face commercial and economic pressures to do so when dealing with other matters?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. This matter raises wide and general issues. That is why we must consider carefully the implications for the British museum and other great international collections.
    Mr. Fallon: From which Government does my hon. Friend think a similar request might be made in respect of the horses of St. Mark's square, Venice?
    Mr. Waldegrave: A large number of Governments, including the Egyptian and Turkish, might have rival claims in that case.
    Mr. Canavan: Is it not a historical fact that Lord Elgin used his position as British ambassador to get his hands on the Parthenon marbles, without the consent of the people of Greece, and that he then proceeded to sell them to the British Government for £35,000? Will the Government now, belatedly, do the decent thing and send the marbles back to Greece so that they can be exhibited in their homeland? Should the Government not make reparation for an act of piracy by Lord Elgin, which even Byron described as plundering the Parthenon to decorate a villa in Scotland?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It was not described as plunder by the Select Committee which looked into the matter, nor have I ever heard any serious criticism of the way in which the British museum displays the marbles.

Welsh Question Time
Mr. Donald Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that though progress with Welsh questions was reasonable today, regrettably, because of other questions on the Order Paper, Welsh questions were not completed. May I invite you to discuss with the Leader of the House the possibility of so arranging Welsh Question Time that we can complete our rota?.
Mr. Speaker: We made good progress on Welsh questions. We reached question 21. The hon. Gentleman knows that we also had to take questions on the House of Commons Commission and the Arts. I try to call as many Back Benchers as possible who have later questions on the Order Paper.

Nuclear Waste (Sellafield)
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the operations of the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. plant at Sellafield and the terms and conditions of the licence under which those operations are permitted.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would normally have wanted to answer the question himself, but he is chairing the House Consultative Committee and has asked me to reply.
The Sellafield works of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., which are an essential part of the United Kingdom's nuclear power programme, operate under the terms of a site licence issued by the Nuclear Installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive and in accordance with the authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste issued by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The latter are published in an appendix to the company's annual report on discharges, and, according to the Department's information, it has kept within them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set out fully in a written answer on 2 November the substantial reductions in discharges which the company has recently made the further reductions which we have required it to make over the next couple of years. The authorising Departments keep a continual watch on the situation and all the available scientific and monitoring data, and will take whatever action is necessary to ensure continued protection of the public.
A discharge occurred over the weekend of 12–14 November which caused some contamination of a short stretch of beach near the site, which was discovered on 19 November. BNFL has stated that this did not represent a danger to the public and the beach was reopened last night. As a precaution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is carrying out its own monitoring in the area, including monitoring of the beach and fish. Inspectors of my Department are making a formal investigation to discover how the incident occurred and whether there has been any breach of the conditions of the authorisation.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I understand why his right hon. Friend cannot be here today.
If the Minister is not satisfied with BNFL's explanation of the circumstances of this most recent incident, should he not ask the Nuclear Installations inspectorate to carry out an independent inquiry? As it is the Government's view that the BNFL is operating within the terms and conditions of its licence—that is important for the industry as well as for my constituents and for wider environmental reasons—may I ask whether they would vary the licence conditions in any way if they were not satisfied with the company's performance? If that were to be done, would it not be much better for the Government to make a proper, considered statement to Parliament on the matter rather than what I can only call the vague and somewhat contradictory statements by the hon. Gentleman in the media over the weekend, which have confused my constituents, the industry and those who are responsible
20
for monitoring what happens? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that when the monitoring that is to take place independently of BNFL is completed, a full report will be published?
Mr. Waldegrave: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, I can confirm that the results of the report will be made available. His suggestion about involving the NII in any further investigations that may be necessary was helpful, and I shall consider it with the other Departments concerned.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman found my comments over the weekend confusing. That is always a danger when one section of the media reports on another section and does not read the original text. There is no question of BNFL operating outside its authorisation or licences. Under Governments of both parties standards have been improved and BNFL has always endeavoured to meet tighter and more rigorous standards. That process must, and will, continue.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Should not the Government be congratulated on reacting in a prompt and calm manner to as yet unsubstantiated allegations that these discharges have induced cancer? Is my hon. Friend aware of an interesting letter in The Times on 15 November which showed that in the 1920s—long before Sellafield was conceived—much medical opinion in west Cumbria was concerned about the incidence of cancer, which even then was higher than the national average?
Mr. Waldegrave: I have read the letter to which my hon. Friend referred. Anything to do with previous allegations about a link between cancer and Windscale is now subject to the inquiry to be headed by Sir Douglas Black, which was announced by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Would it not be better for the health and safety of the people of Cumbria and those on the west coast of Scotland, where the incidence of radioactivity in fish has risen dramatically, if this processing facility, which is laundering much of the world's dirty nuclear washing, were closed? Should not this discharge be stopped at least until independent research has confirmed that there is no danger?
Mr. Waldegrave: I doubt whether that would be right or necessary. Large expenditure has been undertaken in the last few years, with the full co-operation of BNFL, which will produce further major improvements in the discharges. I re-emphasise that BNFL has operated within national and international safety limits.
Mr. Peter Rost: When BNFL's current investment programme is completed, will not the need for any low-level discharge be substantially reduced or eliminated?
Mr. Waldegrave: "Substantially" is exactly the right word.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: How many claims have been made, either by the work force at Sellafield or by people in the area, in respect of leukaemia, cancer and other diseases? In how many cases has liability, if any, been admitted? In how many cases where liability has not been admitted has compensation been paid? What is the purpose of paying compensation where liability is not admitted?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman separately on those points.
Mr. Simon Hughes: If the inquiry recommends that the Government's time scale is too long, will the Minister undertake that there will be a clear Government directive that the discharges be stopped immediately the report is presented to Parliament and that, if necessary, the relevant provisions will be implemented under the Control of Pollution Act or other legislation?
Mr. Waldegrave: Of course. If it were shown, as it has not yet been, that the plant was operating in contravention of the Department's authorisation, action would have to be taken. There is no evidence yet to show that.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: If more money than the £80 million to which the Minister has referred in connection with the development of ion separators and the other filtering technology were available surely there would be no necessity for any fluid discharge of nuclear waste into the sea at Sellafield? Can the Government give an undertaking that they will not only reject any propositions to reduce the £80 million but will make more capital available, so that full development of the technology is possible, thus putting an end to any discharges into the sea?
Mr. Waldegrave: The £80 million is committed to the SIXEP plant, as it is known, which will be on stream next year. A further £20 million is being committed to evaporator plants. I assure the hon. Gentleman that shortage of money is not a problem. To some extent, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Sellafield suffers from some of the penalties of being first in the field in having older machinery than other plants in other parts of the world. Where it is necessary to spend money to make the improvements that can be made, that will be done.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why was it necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to suggest that this matter should be referred to the Nuclear Installations inspectorate before the Government even considered doing that? Some of us who have been interested in such matters for many years assumed that an automatic reference to the NII occurred in such cases. Why has that not happened in this instance?
Mr. Waldegrave: If there were an allegation of a breach of the authorisations issued by my Department, the primary responsibility would fall on my Department in the first instance. In offering to investigate the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I do not think that I have done other than greet it with reasonable courtesy.
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. A private notice question is an extension of Question Time. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been trying to catch my eye.
Mr. David Crouch: Will my hon. Friend note that he gave us cause for concern when he referred to the age of the process at Sellafield? Other discharges of nuclear waste take place into the Channel by the French at Cap de la Hague. That is a more modern plant—operated by Cogema—than that at Sellafield. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the engineering process at Sellafield is not so old-fashioned as to be inefficient?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is necessary to spend considerable sums—up to £100 million—to bring the Sellafield plant up to the latest level of technological performance. My Department must note the performance of similar plants in other parts of the world.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Minister confirm—or deny—the last paragraph in an article in the New Statesman, which said, when referring to waste, that if the pipeline at Sellafield were extended into open waters the discharges would be illegal under international law?
Mr. Waldegrave: A basic rule is that one should not answer hypothetical questions. If the pipeline were somewhere else, doubtless the conditions would be different.
Dr. John Marek: Does the Minister accept that no minimum amount of plutonium is safe for human beings? If so, will he tell the public the truth and ensure that the inquiry publishes details of all the discharges that have been made into the sea off Cumbria, not only of Plutonium but of caesium and strontium, since the plant was set up?
Mr. Waldegrave: I assure the hon. Gentleman that those details are published regularly.

County Armagh (Church Shootings)
3.36 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I shall, with permission Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the shootings at Darkley in county Armagh yesterday evening.
At approximately 6.15 pm yesterday, at least three men armed with automatic weapons entered the Mountain Lodge Pentecostal gospel hall near the village of Darkley in county Armagh. They opened fire in the entrance hall, killing two church elders and fatally wounding a third, whom they then followed into the gospel hall itself. There the gunmen opened fire on the congregation of between 60 and 70 people, including about 20 children. Seven members of the congregation were injured, two seriously. The gunmen then ran outside, fired another 25 shots at the congregation through the outer walls of the hall, and then fled. None of the congregation had any connection with the security forces. Responsibility for this appalling attack has been claimed by a body calling itself the Catholic Reaction Force. One of the weapons used has previously been used in incidents for which the Irish National Liberation Army has claimed responsibility.
The whole House will join me in extending our sympathy to the families of those killed and injured. It will also share my horror and disgust at this outrage. Though in the course of the 14 years campaign of terrorism endured by the people of Northern Ireland there have been other incidents involving greater loss of life, none before has involved the cold-blooded murder of people at worship. The shootings show the true nature of terrorism, and the true nature therefore not only of those who perpetrate it but of all those who advocate and support it.
The universal condemnation they have received from all sides of the community, and from all parts of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, shows in full measure the revulsion that this hideous act has aroused.
The Government of the Republic have given the strongest possible assurances of their full co-operation in pursuing those responsible. The RUC, assisted by the Army, is determined to arrest the murderers.
Mr. Peter Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition share fully his feelings of outrage at this heartless and mindless act of wickedness? We strongly associate ourselves with the right hon. Gentleman's expressions of sympathy for the victims and their families.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Protestant community reacts by seeking some form of retaliation or by withdrawing from the search for a solution, not only would that be to blame the Catholic community for an act that it has overwhelmingly condemned but it would bring about the objective that the murderers set out to achieve, and it might encourage such murders by those who wish to widen the divisions?
Will he further agree that while he will, understandably, receive calls to take further action against terrorists, any action relating to the processes of the criminal courts, taken in advance of the report by Sir George Baker, is unlikely to reduce terrorism or to increase protection of the public, as terrorism is not discouraged by increasing the risk of convicting the wrong people?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I agree with all of it. I urge
24
the people affected by this horrific situation, about which they feel extremely deeply, to leave security to the security forces. However hard or desperate people may feel, they must not take the law into their own hands. Under no circumstances will the Government permit that to happen.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the feelings on both sides of the House of those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I associate myself with the Secretary of State's expressions of sympathy.
When gunmen appear in a congregation of worshippers on a sabbath evening, slay three of the church elders and spray the congregation with bullets in an attempt to murder them as well, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is a new departure in republican terrorist strategy.
As the RUC had intelligence to the effect that there there would be an attack on a place of worship yesterday, why was there no security for that very isolated Protestant building? After the incident, why were orders given to the RUC that it should appear in strength in Protestant areas in case of a severe backlash, with the result that men were unable to go into the areas to which those who had committed the outrage had, perhaps, fled? Why was it that although the police visited Protestant ministers and congregations in the same area and warned them that similar atrocities might take place, they could not assure them that there would be a continual presence during church services because of manpower shortages and difficulties resulting from a cut in overtime?
Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that isolated congregations will be protected so that they will not have to defend themselves? Will the Secretary of State accept that a person has a duty to defend himself if there is no possibility of him being legally defended by the security forces? Does not the Secretary of State agree that in those circumstances people are entitled to defend themselves against murderous thugs?
Mr. Prior: Of course, I understand the strong feelings that exist throughout the House and, not least, among Northern Ireland Members.
It is true that the police had some information that led them to believe that there might be an attack on a policeman, or policemen, at worship somewhere in the Province. That is a very wide indication. Of course, it would be quite impossible for the police to guard every congregation. However, after the attack, every effort was made to tell congregations near the scene of the attack what had happened. I should have thought that that was a wise precaution. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the concern about a backlash in Protestant areas, which had led to a shortage in the numbers of police available to round up the murderers. I cannot comment on that without further notice, other than to say that there would have been no question of any curtailment of overtime on operational duties. I can assure the House about that. The Chief Constable knows that he has any amount of overtime available, when requested.
Of course, there is a right to use a weapon, but only in self-defence, when an attack has been made. Some people are issued with weapons for that purpose. Concern about a backlash, sectarian killings and the Protestant Action Force—which has since made a statement—would seem to suggest that everyone in Northern Ireland has a duty to ensure that the police are given every possible support.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I should like to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, the Government say that they are determined to arrest the murderers. How can they do that if the murderers are in another jurisdiction; or have the Government received an assurance from the Irish Republic that those wanted for the murders will be extradited? Secondly, bearing in mind that no area can be saturated indefinitely by the security forces, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that where—as in the case of county Armagh—there is an indication that a definite set is being made upon a sector of the frontier, that part of it is so saturated by the security forces that terrorist movements become virtually impossible?
Mr. Prior: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second point. I am, of course, in close touch with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable. Obviously, we shall have to see what else can be done in that area of county Armagh, and in the Dundalk corridor, which is now causing us so much trouble. I had a long talk with the GOC and the Chief Constable on such matters only yesterday. I cannot answer for the Government in the South, but the North will do all that it can to catch the murderers. If they are caught in the South, we very much hope that they will be extradited. Indeed, there are grounds for thinking that the Government of the Republic take the same view on this issue.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to persuade the Official Unionist party to reconsider the decision that it is reported to have made to withdraw from the assembly? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is precisely what the terrorists want? Does he further agree that if terrorists can get what they want by violence, it will only make them increase the level of violence?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those views. It is much easier to destroy than to find a solution in Northern Ireland. I would very much regret any decision by the Official Unionist party that helped, even in a small way, to make Northern Ireland's institutions more difficult to run and less effective. I greatly hope that in its understandable anger and concern about what has happened, it will recognise that it is only by building democratic institutions slowly and methodically that we shall overcome the problems.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does not the Secretary of State agree that these latest murders by the so-called Catholic Reaction Force, like the actions recently taken by the Protestant Action Force—as I think it calls itself—clearly illustrate to all those who want to see that the murders in Northern Ireland are pure criminal murders, and that those who invoke politics—whatever organisation or side they may come from—are deceiving the world about the sort of pure criminal murders that occurred last night? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in Armagh and on either side of the border there are no more than 20 or 25 such men who move from one organisation to another? Does not he accept that to swamp the area with soldiers would be to fail to understand that a small number of guns move around within the group? Will the Secretary of State take up the response in the South? Perhaps he or one of his Ministers could meet a Minister from Southern Ireland on the border.
26
We all know the names of those whom the police want. Someone knows where those men are. That is what the police need to know. We do not want any talk about soldiers swamping the area as if a John Wayne sort of battle was involved.
Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his points, and I shall certainly consider his suggestion. I think that we know who the people responsible are, and we want them to be caught. There is a good deal of concern because they have not yet been caught. Anything that we can do by better co-operation with the Republic, along the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be much appreciated.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that this act of genocide will not weaken the resolve of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland to resist Republican terrorism from whatever organisation? Will he also accept from me that the Protestant Community, in particular, in Northern Ireland will study his words today to see what comfort they can get from him? Is he prepared to tell the House that there have been failures under his present security policy? Gallant men in our security forces are sitting ducks for the terrorists. Will he change that security policy to one of resolute initiative against the IRA and its kinsmen?
Mr. Prior: I suspect that there are always some failures in security policy. I should be deluding myself and the House if sometimes we did not admit to getting things wrong. I believe that the security forces have done a fantastic job in the past year or two in the frustration of many attacks that could have been devastating. They never receive any credit for frustrating these attacks.
I am in close touch with the security forces. Yesterday, I addressed 200 officers of the Ulster Defence Regiment and gave them a number of assurances about the importance which the Government and the country attach to their role. I am doing all that I can to help Northern Ireland proceed towards peace and the defeat of terrorism. That will require enormous effort by all the people of Northern Ireland if we are to be successful.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I assure the Secretary of State that we share his revulsion of that terrible deed, which has hit an all-time low in depravity. We admire greatly the courage shown by many people recently, particularly the former chairman of Armagh council—I think it was—who not only had his council stand in memory of a shot Catholic but who was blown to smithereens within minutes himself. His action showed great courage.
Will the Secretary of State resist any demands for the resignation of the Chief Constable who, I believe, is held in high regard in most circles in Northern Ireland? Certainly all who have met him think a great deal of him. Will the Secretary of State resist any demands for his resignation and impress upon local residents, north and south of the border, that the greatest thing they can do is to expose these people who are, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has said, generally known to the police, so that they can be brought to justice as rapidly as possible?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said, particularly about the Chief Constable. I cannot imagine that there is a more difficult job than that of Chief

27
Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. He deserves all possible support from everyone in the House and the country. He is a man of great integrity, working under enormous pressure, and carrying out his tasks in the highest tradition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am grateful to him and to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the feelings of revulsion expressed in the House today are fully shared by all Catholics throughout the United Kingdom? Does he agree that these acts of horror are perpetrated by evil men—whatever label they may give themselves—who are more intent upon destabilising society in Northern Ireland to further the aims of revolution and more interested in an atheistic philosophy than any aspect of Christianity?
Mr. Prior: These are just cold-blooded murderers out to cause all the trouble that they can, and to destabilise the Province. I accept that the whole Catholic population feels as much revulsion about these murders as anyone else.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that no matter how horrified we are about these murderous events, our task is to help the legitimate security forces to handle this problem and not to usurp their function by intensifying an already inflammatory position by making speeches calling on new forces to enter this dreadful arena? Must we not try to make it clear that our aim is to lower the tension and to show that sectarian killings invariably result in a mirror image in the other community? We must try to gentle that down and to help the security forces to do the job without further inflaming the position.
Mr. Prior: We need the security forces to catch murderers, to prevent terrorism, and to give confidence to the local population. I have to bear those points in mind at the same time as I bear in mind the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman—the need, the whole time, to try to lower tension and to allow people to lead normal lives. It is a difficult balance to keep and the security forces have a difficult job.
Rev. William McCrea: I join the Secretary of State in saluting the gallantry of the Ulster Defence Regiment and all members of Ulster's security forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that Roman Catholic terrorist thugs have plumbed the depths of
28
depravity with this latest atrocity? Has the Secretary of State any information or evidence that a well-known mass murderer from my locality, Dominic McGlinchey, has been involved in this devilish deed, or that any of those who escaped from Long Kesh have been involved? Does the Secretary of State agree that the time has come for this insane, devilish brat McGlinchey to be destroyed for good?
Mr. Prior: I condemn violence and murder from whatever source, whether Catholic or Protestant. I have to be careful about the second question asked by the hon. Gentleman. There is no evidence to suggest that the man mentioned was involved in this offence, but it resembles a number of offences that have been committed in recent months, and the man mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is very much on our wanted list. He is certainly one who is due for extradition from the Republic.
Mr. David Winnick: As this foul and evil deed was plainly carried out to stir up sectarian warfare, should not anyone with influence in Northern Ireland exercise restraint so as not to play into the hands of the murderers? May I make the suggestion that I have made previously after such atrocities. Would it not be useful for such crimes to be well publicised in the United States so that people over there understand that this is not political warfare? These are crimes against humanity.
Mr. Prior: It does not happen very often that I say thank you to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but I thank him very much. Yes, I agree with the hon. Member.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in circumstances like these, in fighting a guerilla war where people can hide in the jungle or the mountains, people who harbour these criminals—that is all they are—should be treated as though they had taken part in the offence? All these people cannot flee across the border. If we are to solve this matter, surely the time has come when people, even families, who shelter such people and who know that they possess arms for these deeds, should be treated as mad and criminal, and be deemed to be as guilty as those who take part in the offence.
Mr. Prior: I shall have to study the legal position of what my hon. Friend said, but I should be surprised if those who harbour known criminals are not in some contravention of the law. I am not a lawyer and I shall have to study that point.

Northern Ireland (Terrorism)
4.8 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: 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 have urgent consideration, namely,
"the new strategy of Republican terrorist killings in Northern Ireland with the attack on worshippers at the Protestant church service at Darkley Keady and the need for appropriate security measures."
This House is responsible for security in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I must take the opportunity, as a Member of the House from Northern Ireland, to make this application today, as this is the only place that has authority over those responsible for security in Northern Ireland.
The matter is specific. The facts have already been stated in the House. When one listens to those who were present at that church service, when one imagines the scene as the shots were ringing out, and when one hears the account of how three church officers murdered in the sight of the congregation, which included women and children, one is revolted by the realisation that this can happen in a part of the United Kingdom in the 20th century.
The matter is important because the safety of men and women, especially that of men and women who seek to attend their place of worship on Sundays, is at stake.
Thirdly, the matter is urgent because of the threat to similar congregations in the county of Armagh. References have been made in the House today to the sterling character of the Chief Constable, but that view is not held by the majority of elected representatives in Northern Ireland. The House had better take note of the
30
fact that the Chief Constable is more often out of Northern Ireland than in Northern Ireland, delivering lectures elsewhere to police forces on how to defeat terrorism, when our people are being murdered——
Mr. Maxton: Disgraceful.
Rev. Ian Paisley: You can say that it is disgraceful, but you will not be following funerals, visiting widows or trying to succour orphans. [Interruption.] Yes, I am speaking to you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] I may be out of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is speaking to me.
Rev. Ian Paisley: You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, how the people of Northern Ireland feel. I should be failing in my duty if I did not speak out. Even if the House does not like to hear the truth, it shall do so. It will have to listen to the truth. Therefore, I submit my application to the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) gave me notice that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the new strategy of Republican terrorist killings in Northern Ireland".
I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. The House had an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland after his statement. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the only decision that I have to take is whether the matter should have precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Scottish Affairs
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During last week's statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I asked about the effect on housing in Scotland, and he said that it was a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I wonder whether the Secretary of State—or the Leader of the House—has given you notice that he will make a statement this week on the effects of the financial statement on Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.
Mr. Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is not much more to be said.
Mr. Maxton: May I say, to protect Scottish Members, that on several occasions statements on Scotland have been made by the Secretary of State in reply to written questions or to planted oral questions. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that an early-day motion on the issue has been put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Would it be possible to call a Speaker's Conference to consider how Scottish affairs should be organised, both in the House and outside?
Mr. Speaker: I doubt very much whether that is a appropriate matter for me. The Leader of the House is present and I am sure he will have heard what has been said.

Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of time)
4.13 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of The House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of time)
  Committee
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st December 1983.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  (4) No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be

  33
  considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  'the Bill' means the Telecommunications Bill;
  'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  It is not long since I proposed a similar motion, when what was broadly the same Bill was before the House during the last Parliament. Therefore, I believe that many right hon. and hon. Members are familiar with the issues at stake. Accordingly, I intend my remarks to be tolerably brief.
  The Bill is essentially the one that left the House in March. However, certain changes have been made. It is therefore appropriate that I should describe the principles that lie behind it and summarise some of its more important provisions.
  The main objectives of the Bill are to further the policy of liberalisation in telecommunications and to enable us to dispose of a controlling interest in British Telecom by offering shares for sale to the private sector. Thus the Bill ends the exclusive privilege of BT and introduces new arrangements for licensing all those who run telecommunications systems. A new regulatory structure will be established by the creation of the Office of Telecommunications under the Director General of Telecommunications. The Bill prepares the way for flotation. The licensing and regulatory functions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Director General of Telecommunications will be performed under the statutory duties set out in clause 3. That clause has been extended and redrafted since the Bill was last before the House.
  The Bill also covers a number of other important areas. Schedule 2 replaces the Telegraph Acts 1863 to 1916 by a modern telecommunications code that will govern how telecommunications operators can place their apparatus in the streets and on private land. Clause 10 sets out how the code will be applied. It, too, has been modified since the Bill was last under construction. It extends the procedures for public consultation before the code powers are granted and refers specifically to conditions that may be attached to the granting of code powers to protect the environment. The Bill also amends the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967 and makes further provision for their enforcement.
  Part IV of the Bill is completely new, and updates and replaces the existing provisions in the Post Office Act 1969 governing the licensing of cable programme services. Those clauses represent an interim measure until the Cable and Broadcasting Bill reaches the statute book. The

  35
  Government hope to introduce that Bill early next month in another place. I think that hon. Members will generally appreciate the objectives of the Telecommunications Bill.
  Following the election, the Bill received a Second Reading on 18 July. The Committee stage began for the second time on 25 October. At this point it is appropriate to remind the House that last time the considerable total of no less than 161 hours 30 minutes was spent discussing the Bill in Committee, 110 hours before we introduced a timetable motion. This time the Bill has already been considered by Standing Committee A for nearly 80 hours. It is therefore impossible for anyone reasonably to argue that an adequate amount of time has not been provided for the Bill's discussion. Of course, there is new ground to be covered, particularly as the Government have now made available a draft of the licence that it is proposed to grant to BT when the Bill becomes law. However, that factor must be set alongside the experience of Standing Committee A during its 15 sittings since 25 October.
  In view of the previous history of the Bill, my hon. Friends the Minister for Information Technology and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who are taking the Bill through Committee, began by proposing a sittings motion that could have enabled the Committee to sit mornings and afternoons on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Opposition opposed that motion and spent no less than five hours debating the issue before getting down to the legislation. They then prolonged the debate on clause 1 and schedule 1, which simply provide for the establishment of Oftel and the appointment of the director General of Telecommunications in a way that almost exactly follows the precedent set by the Office of Fair Trading, through seven sittings of the Committee. The debate in clause 1 and schedule 1 took 32 hours 30 minutes. Therefore, altogether 37 hours 30 minutes passed before clause 2 was reached, compared with a mere 28 hours last time. Admittedly, clause 2 was agreed to more rapidly than last time. However, clause 3 has now been under discussion for over 36 hours, and we still have 91 clauses and six schedules to go.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) will be immortalised, if not canonised, for his comment during the fourteenth sitting:
  "We are going far too fast."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 November 1983; c. 682.]
  It is clear that the Opposition are reluctant to subject the Bill to constructive debate. There is a premeditated campaign, co-ordinated with action outside Parliament, designed to frustrate the progress of a major part of the Government's legislative programme.
  For their part, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that reasonable progress is made in securing the legislation to which they are committed. There are many important matters in the Bill that remain to be debated, and it is to provide a sensible amount of time for that that the Government have tabled a timetable motion.
  I now request the House to agree that the Bill should be reported by 1 December, with subsequent Report and Third Reading to take place on two allotted days. Under the terms of the motion before the House, the Standing Committee can meet to consider the Bill for a further four days, allowing seven sittings if the Business Sub-Committee decides to continue morning and afternoon sittings as at present. Bearing in mind that the Bill and its
  36
  predecessor have between them had more than 240 hours in Committee, I am sure that the House will agree that our proposal is not unreasonable.
  In moving a guillotine at this time I am, as Leader of the House, conscious of the interest that the subject of timetabling, especially automatic timetabling, continues to arouse among the many right hon. and hon. Members who take a close interest in the procedures of the House. Discussions are taking place through the usual channels on the desirability of establishing a Select Committee on Procedure. Although it is not for me to anticipate what subjects any such Committee might consider, I think it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this might be considered an appropriate area for examination. If so, I hope that all veterans of this campaign, whichever side they may have supported during the past few weeks, will make themselves available to give evidence and, perhaps, turn their sometimes frustrating experiences to good account.
  Meanwhile, I remind the House that the Telecommunications Bill is an important part of the Government's economic strategy. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: We shall certainly study with interest what the Leader of the House said at the conclusion of his brief remarks about how to handle Bills. We knew from day one of the Bill—from its Second Reading debate on 18 July—that sooner or later the Government would present the House with a guillotine motion, and we have not been disappointed. We knew that, not only because the Bill's predecessor was guillotined on 16 February, but, more fundamentally, because the Opposition are wholly opposed to the principle and main provisions of the Bill.
  The Opposition have the expertise, energy and will to oppose and resist the Bill in Committee until at least the next general election. That does not mean that we have wasted time in Committee—indeed, we used that time to educate Ministers, Government supporters and the public about the malign effects of the Bill. I do not claim that we have had much success in our efforts to educate Ministers and Conservative Members of the Committee, but we have had quite considerable impact on opinion in the country. It is good and encouraging and reflects well on the sheer common sense of the British people that the latest opinion polls have registered a clear majority against the fundamental principles of the Bill—the privatisation of British Telecom.
  There is only one point on which the Opposition and the Government agree, and that is the importance of what is at stake—the deregulation and privatisation of the most successful and dynamic of our publicly owned industries. We are dealing with the future not only of a major and indispensable public service—the telephone system—but, as the Secretary of State's predecessor reminded the House during the Second Reading debate on 18 July, with
  "a whole range of present and future services that involve the transmission of information. Computer and telephone technology are converging, assisted by digital techniques and broad band cable. As a result, telephone systems will change almost beyond recognition, as will business techniques, office equipment and the information services available to the home."—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 26.]

  37
  Not only is there a vast existing market for modern telephone systems, but there is an even vaster market, both at home and abroad, for telecommunications products and services which, as that market develops, will change our way of life in almost incalculable ways. That market offers a glittering prospect of success for British Telecom and its major British suppliers, and also the opportunity to make a major contribution to the prosperity of our people in the decades ahead.
  For the past 70 years, under public ownership and as a closely regulated monopoly, British Telecom and the Post Office before it have provided a unique combination of public service, profitability and technological advance. Under successive Conservative and Labour Governments the nation has invested in success. We wish to continue and sustain that in the national interest. Equally, the Government—because BT is both so successful and so important—are determined to hand it over to private profit-making and profit-motivated competition.
  It is our strong conviction that the Bill is against the public interest, and I shall briefly explain why. First, the Bill will undermine and frustrate the development of the telephone service as a universal amenity for all our people. In Britain today more than 75 per cent. of households have their own telephone. As rapid development during the past 20 years has made plain, under public ownership the home telephone has become as universal as the supply of gas, water and electricity. In addition, the public are served by a nationwide network of more than 80,000 public call boxes. The full extension of telephone services, especially in rural areas and small towns, and the maintenance of a nationwide network of public call boxes have been made possible through cross-subsidisation, by using the surpluses generated on the more profitable routes, that is the trunk lines, and heavy business users, to that end. The inevitably non-profit-making and loss-making services will be put at risk and their further extension much reduced.
  The Government have deliberately set out to enable new private competitors to provide alternative services in the profitable sectors of the industry. Mercury will compete on the main routes, but it will not provide the public services that are unprofitable.
  Secondly, the Bill will push up domestic telephone tariffs. To meet the criticism that the public service element of the telephone service will be undermined, the Government have required the successor company—the privatised British Telecom—to provide a range of public services, call boxes and the like. It will be required to make "reasonable" provision, but, despite many hours of debate we have yet to find out what "reasonable" provision means.
  We know two things for certain. First, as Mercury and other competitors increase their activities, BT profitability on main trunk routes is bound to decline. Secondly, as BT's successor company will be sold off—51 per cent. to private shareholders—the predominant ethos and ownership pressure on BT's policy will be for increased profitability and higher dividends.
  Where public service obligations clash with shareholders' rewards, we know that profitability, not public service, will be the victor. The only way—and it is only a partial remedy—to square the circle is to raise domestic tariffs. The comment by Lord Weinstock earlier this summer was quoted in a previous debate, and it is worth quoting again. He said:
  38
  "I am not clear what point there is in privatising a company which is by its nature a monopoly. I don't see how you can have anything other than a monopoly running a national community service."
  Thirdly, we believe that privatisation and deregulation will not accelerate, but will impede, technological innovation and advance. This is a capital-intensive industry, requiring exceptionally heavy programmes of capital investment. This year the capital investment programme in running at £2,000 million. Research and development are also important. No one will deny that British Telecom's research and development laboratory at Mottlesham Heath has made an exceptional contribution to major new developments, especially in optical fibres, small digital exchanges, the use of microchip technology and in other areas. Lead time through research, development, manufacturing and installation is exceptionally long in this industry.
  I see no reason to believe that private enterprise or a profit-based British Telecom successor company would be better equipped to carry out those vital tasks than the existing British Telecom. On the contrary, our experience of high technology and high investment industries suggests that, under private ownership, adequate long-term capital investment is not available and that the Exchequer must either massively support them from public funds—as was the case with the British computer and aerospace industries—or take them into full public ownership.
  Privatisation and competition will undoubtedly lead to the abandonment of the long-established "Buy British" policies of British Telecom. At least 70,000 jobs in major British companies, such as Standard Telephone and Cables, Plessey and GEC are dependent upon the purchasing policies of BT. With reasonable security in the home market they can engage in research and development programmes and attack those export markets—there are not many of them—that are open to export competition.
  For those and many other reasons the Opposition are convinced that the Bill will damage the public interest and Britain's prospects in the telecommunications industry. We are opposed to the principle of the Bill and to the major provisions for the future of telecommunications that are made under it.
  The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The right hon. Gentleman has set out the reasons why he is opposed to the Bill and why he, as the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, finds it totally unacceptable. If he finds it so utterly repugnant, why is he not in Committee opposing it?
  Mr. Shore: I am not in Committee opposing the Bill because I have admirable representatives in my team there and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not in the Committee either.
  The Opposition expected that sooner or later a timetable motion would be introduced. However, we are surprised by its timing and shocked by the draconian terms in which it is drafted. It was only on Thursday that the Minister for Information Technology made his first and major statement in Standing Committee A on what the Government's competition policy aimed to achieve. That, together with the abolition of British Telecom's monopoly position in clause 2 and the wide-ranging powers and functions of the Director General of Telecommunications and the Secretary of State in clause 3, provides the framework for a large part of the subsequent clauses.

  39
  Last Thursday we learnt from the Minister that BT's monopoly of supply and maintenance of the prime telephone instrument connected to BT's systems was to end by the close of 1984. We also learnt that the maintenance of newly installed call-routing apparatus was to be fully open to competition by November 1986. We learnt, further, that services provided over the public telecommunications network, other than the basic telephone service, were to be freely licensed. Already 60 value-added network services have been registered for general licence, with proposals for about 200 different services.
  We learnt—at last—what at least is the Government's short-term policy for competition in providing public networks. Having granted Mercury a licence in 1982, the Government decided that no further licence would be issued until at least 1990. We learnt what the Government's policy was on the licensing of radio telephone networks. BT and Mercury are to be faced with two licence competitors and the Government will soon license their first new broad band cable network. That is a complex and, on its face, inconsistent pattern of competition. It should be fully debated and explored.
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has twice said that he knew from the beginning that a timetable motion would arise. Would it not have been much more sensible for both sides of the Committee to get together and arrange a proper timetable at the beginning of our discussions on the Bill, so that the important matters that he described could be discussed in their right time? Both sides of the Committee could have agreed the correct length of time to be given to each clause.
  Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we could not know that in advance. There is far more to a guillotine motion than the guillotine itself. I was discussing the timing of the guillotine and the detailed conditions that it imposes. Throughout successive stages of the Committee, Ministers have announced major new pieces of information, the latest of which was announced by the Minister for Information Technology on Thursday. Although that statement should be fully debated and explored, it will not be.
  The motion imposes a ridiculous and outrageous timetable upon the Committee and the House. The Committee is being instructed to complete its proceedings by 1 December, which is in 10 days' time. The motion allows a further three and a half days in Committee, which represents about 26½ hours. During that time the Committee is expected to discuss the remaining 91 clauses and six schedules, which fill 105 pages of this 188-page Bill. To keep pace with the Government's timetable the Committee will be forced to digest, on average, three and a half clauses and four pages of schedules during each hour that remains, and we shall then be allowed two days on Report. That is a ridiculous timetable. Major issues arise in those clauses, including the new licensing system, its regulation and enforcement, the designation of standards for new apparatus, compulsory purchase and powers of entry, the rights of consumers, workers' participation and industrial relations, the licensing of new cable programme services, and the method of privatisation of British Telecom.
  40
  If there were no Labour Members on the Committee—if it were manned entirely by dull-witted conformists of the majority party—it would still be impossible to scrutinise such a large measure in such a short time. The Government have more amendments on the Amendment Paper now than the Opposition, and they will be hard pressed even to read them out and pass them because of the timetable. As the Leader of the House will recall, the guillotine on the previous and different Telecommunications Bill on 16 February provided 22 days for the completion of that significantly smaller Bill. The 10 days that he is offering now are derisory. The House will be denied the opportunity of scrutinising large areas of the Bill, which will not only make a thoroughly bad Bill even worse, but will deservedly damage the reputation of the Government and, unhappily, that of the House of Commons.
  For all those reasons, the Opposition will vote against the motion and against the Bill when the debate concludes.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Having sat through more than 60 or 70 hours of the Committee proceedings on the Telecommunications Bill, I thought that nothing more terrible could happen to an hon. Member than having to listen for hour after hour to speeches by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). Of course, I was quite wrong. Even that experience pales alongside the trepidation that is now felt by this maiden speaker.
  I am naturally anxious to observe the traditions of making a maiden speech in the House. The first tradition is, of course to be non-controversial. I shall do my best to remain non-controversial, although I ask hon. Members' indulgence if I occasionally stray from the high standards that are expected of me.
  The second tradition, which I most willingly follow, involves my predecessor, Ray Fletcher. He will be known by many hon. Members on both sides. He was well liked and respected, and had a long and illustrious career in the House. He was also a prolific and talented contributor to The Times. I might add that he has been most kind and generous to me in Amber Valley since the general election.
  However, the third convention, which is the one that gives me the most pleasure, is to refer to my constituency, the Derbyshire seat of Amber Valley, which I have the honour to represent. Amber valley lies between Belper and Nottingham to the east and west and Derby and Clay Cross to the north and south. The constituency used to be known as Ilkeston in the days when Ilkeston was one of the four main towns constituting the Ilkeston division. Now Ilkeston has become part of another division, and the three main towns of Ripley, Heanor and Alfreton, along with several other smaller towns and villages, make up the constituency of Amber Valley.
  Amber Valley does not boast a fine cathedral or any architectural or engineering wonders. However, we have perhaps the next best thing, a company called Butterley Engineering, which was responsible for the steel structure of St. Pancras station. More important than any monuments—and, in my view, far more valuable—we have a great community spirit of kindness and warmth in Amber Valley, typical of an area with a great mining tradition.

  41
  Until recently, Amber Valley formed part of the great Derbyshire coalfield. After the war, Amber Valley had no fewer than 15 collieries, employing 14,000 men. The last colliery closed in 1969. Now only a handful of miners make their daily trek to the neighbouring coalfields of north Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire in the next-door constituencies of Bolsover and Ashfield. However, we are not short of many retired miners, who are more than happy to relate the rigours of life in the pits 20 or 30 years ago in the miners' welfare clubs. Those men retain no illusions about the good old days.
  Hon. Members who have the honour to represent mining or exmining constituencies will be well aware of the special spirit that is manifest in those areas. That spirit is manifest especially in the great response that local causes always receive from the community.
  As the mines closed in Amber Valley in the 1950s and 1960s, at the rate of approximately one a year, Amber Valley did not fall back into indolence and self-pity. New industries sprang up and new companies moved into the area—from light engineering to textiles and from furniture to computer software. Indeed, prefabricated buildings manufactured in Amber Valley are on their way to the Falklands to keep the troops warm.
  I should also mention the small body of dairy farmers who have to use all their skill and farming knowledge to extract production from ground that all too often has been devastated by the opencast mining operations of the National Coal Board.
  Amber Valley, in common with many areas, is suffering from the world recession. However, it is also hampered by what I consider to be unfair competition for jobs from assisted and development areas. I hope to speak on that subject in future debates.
  I am particularly pleased to have caught your eye today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, having spent so much time listening to the orations of Opposition Members, I know at first hand that they have had plenty of time to debate the Bill. They took full advantage of that time, although I admit that there were times when their contributions caused the eyelids to grow a little heavy. Fortunately, the offerings of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made up with wit and great good humour what they lacked in plausibility and relevance.
  As one who has been involved during the past three or four years in the telecommunications industry, I have seen at first hand the great improvements that have come about since the 1981 Act. It is worth remembering the parlous conditions in which the telecommunications industry found itself in the late 1970s. It is true that the British telecommunications system was one of the four largest systems in the world. It is also true that the research department at Martlesham was responsible for great and innovative technical advances, but customers all too often suffered from the worst excesses of a public sector monopoly.
  At times the performance of the Post Office, which was then in control, would have been a joke, had it not been for the severe problems that its inefficiency caused. I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced a deafening silence after dialling a number and the eternal wait for operators or directory inquiries to answer. Waiting lists for equipment ran for months, even years, and contacting the telephone sales department was like trying to get a private
  42
  audience with the Pope. In many cases, customers were so desperate that they resorted to bribery to get equipment installed, maintained and mended.
  There have been great improvements since 1981, but improvement comes slowly. It took the United States 10 years, after its liberalisation in 1968, to reap the full benefits, and it will take this country many more years before our telecommunications network is totally changed. I believe that management is the key to such change, and the failure of management was partly responsible for the parlous condition in which our telecommunications industry found itself in the late 1970s.
  Opposition Members accuse us of putting forward the interests of business in the Bill. I do not deny that. Business creates jobs and produces the products that we all buy. Anything that helps business must help us all. However, Conservative Members are equally concerned for the proverbial little old lady who might make only one or two calls a week. Therefore, we are desperate to see improvements in the British telecommunications system and network. That is why safeguards are built into the Bill—safeguards on public call boxes and in other respects—such as have never been enshrined in law before.
  Opposition Members complain that profits will be made out of the service under privatisation and liberalisation. They say that private profit is incompatible with public service. However, they fail to grasp that, under monopoly, vast profits were made by the privileged few suppliers who were allowed to enter the charmed circle of telecommunications approved manufacturers. In the absence of competition, those companies grew fat and complacent during years of all but guaranteed public sector monopoly purchasing. Only since competition was introduced have users been able to buy and rent the products that they deserve—products that have been available overseas for many years.
  I therefore give my full support to the Bill. Nevertheless, I have one worrying reservation. Competition is one thing, but when we play by the rules and others do not, our industry can suffer. I tabled an amendment on the question of reciprocity to ensure that, if we import products from overseas, we have equal and free access to export our products to those overseas markets. At present, the only market in the world that can be said to be truly liberal is the American market. We have already seen examples of the French trying to sell telephone exchanges to Hull. The first Teletex system to be approved in Great Britain this year was Swedish. No one pretends that we can sell our products in those markets. Worse still, products gain a name for being assembled in Britain because they have a plastic casing and, on some occasions, a "Made in Britain" sticker on them. That is not good enough.
  With that reservation, I believe that the Bill will be greatly beneficial. I am, however, sad that the Opposition are trying to delay its implementation. I support the timetable motion because the sooner the Bill is on the statute book the sooner the benefits will accrue to my constituents, to the constituents of Labour Members and to all those who work in the telecommunications industry.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. John Golding: It is my pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on his maiden speech. It was nice to see him awake; he will appreciate what I mean. It was

  43
  also pleasant to hear him begin on a slightly rebellious note. His hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will tell him that that is the easiest way to avoid late-night sittings if one sits on the Conservative Benches. To rebel is to be able to live an idle life.
  The Leader of the House will agree that the hon. Member for Amber Valley began well in Committee. On his very first morning the hon. Gentleman gave me a book—from which I could quote extensively, but will not—as a present. It was a nice present, especially as he had written it himself. I also thank him for his compliment to Ray Fletcher, who once tried to get me to go up in a hot air balloon, a pleasure that I felt obliged to decline—[Interruption.] Perhaps Ray was trying to get me to provide fuel for the balloon.
  The hon. Member for Amber Valley made a controversial speech, especially when he made nasty remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), but we have come to expect that sort of thing. Although it was a controversial speech I shall not comment on it in view of the tradition of the House. Contrary to his views, I believe that the Government want to sell off BT to raise some quick cash. How can a business that has got itself into a financial mess make any money if the machinery that would achieve that is sold off? The Government's action on this is crackers. It is economic lunacy and it is called privatisation. Because what they are doing is patently wrong—half-baked and disreputable—they are trying to do it as far away as possible from the constant criticism of Parliament. Hence the guillotine motion today.
  The Government are constantly embarrassed because they are losing the argument. I am told that the Bill is in the charge of the Minister for Information Technology. In Committee we can expect all technology and no information. Consider the sale of the shares. It is a sad and sorry tale. The Government bungled the sale of Cable and Wireless, Amersham International and Associated British Ports. Those episodes will appear as success stories compared with the sale of BT.
  The Government decided to privatise the British Telecom—and I emphasise "British"—and what was their first step? They sent officials to Tokyo to discuss the sale of shares with the Japanese. Then they actually paid an American firm, Morgan Stanley, to study the sale of shares to the Americans. It is even rumoured that shares will be sold in the middle east. Conservative Ministers will look at home in the bazaars of the middle east. It will not surprise me, having listened to their arguments on this subject over the months, if they swap BT for half a dozen goats and a couple of camels. That is the sort of mentality they have.
  Unless we kick up enough fuss, British Telecom will become the Nippon-Arab-Yankee telephone company. The POEU—I declare any interest as a POEU assistant secretary—does not want our public telecommunications system sold to the Yanks or anyone else abroad. We do not want it sold to anybody, but if it must be sold, at least let us keep it 100 per cent. British. One reason why the Government are in a financial mess is that they are keeping over 3 million people unemployed. This measure will put more people out of work.
  44
  It is interesting to note that after Department of Trade and Industry officials had asked the Japanese whether they were interested in buying shares, they went on to inquire whether they were interested in selling us telecommunications equipment. We can only guess that the inscrutable Japanese—already staggered by the offer of shares in BT—almost fell off their chairs laughing. It was like sending a deputation to Bill Sykes asking whether he would welcome the repeal of the Larceny Act. Fancy asking the Japanese whether they would like to sell us telecommunications equipment.
  The situation would be laughable if it were not so tragic. On the Government Bench sits the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a Minister who represents the west midlands. He has constituents who are unemployed and would like to work at GEC (Telecoms) in Coventry. Is it not incredible that, instead of supporting them and other telecommunication workers in the north and south, the Minister instead is prepared to be party to sending officials to Tokyo to ask the Japanese whether they would like some of our work? Rather than being a Minister with responsibility for the west midlands he is acting more like a Minister for Overseas Development. He should be fighting for work for Britain, not being a party to work going abroad.
  The hon. Gentleman's partner in crime is Sir George Jefferson, who has made it clear that a privatised BT will abandon the policy of buying British. No wonder Lord Weinstock of GEC and Sir Kenneth Corfield of STC are fed up with the Government. There is no way that people overseas will be persuaded to buy British if we are installing foreign equipment in this country. We cannot revitalise GEC, STC or Plessey by shutting down their factories. Can we afford to lose more jobs? Should we scrap more valuable equipment or, as with other industries, sell it to be used abroad against us?
  The Government despise the word "protection", but if they were poor, unemployed or managers facing the chop they would not be so willing, in the name of free trade, to export—no, give away—our jobs to the Japanese. They should be investing in a modern public British telecommunications system.
  The biggest indictment of the creation of the Mercury system is that it is wasting Britain's investment. British Telecom has a cable radio system that links our cities and the countryside. It is underused and when it is fully modernised—as it must be, whether public or private—it will have even greater overcapacity. Alongside it, at enormous cost, is being built the Mercury system. If it ever gets off the ground—and I shall do everything possible within the law to stop it—it will also run at overcapacity. Have we so much spare capital that we can afford this wasteful duplication? What is the point of Mercury providing a service for big business at the expense of the ordinary residential subscriber and services in the countryside?
  The Government have put up the smoke screen that the BT licence will protect the customer. They know that it will not. Their case is being put by BT management in newspaper advertisements that are a national disgrace. They are a disgrace because the Government's propaganda is being paid for not by Conservative Central Office but by the public. They are a disgrace because they are deliberately provocative to the staff, proving that the argument over privatisation is not only with the Government but with the BT board and its chairman. They

  45
  are a disgrace because they do not make it clear that a BT board, appointed to run a public corporation, cannot speak or give guarantees on behalf of any future board responsible to private shareholders. They are a disgrace because they mislead. They describe, for example, the licence as a licence granted by Parliament when clearly it is not. They pretend that it gives protection when it contains so much small print, so many get-outs and so gives much discretion to the Director-General of Telecommunications that it clearly does not. The Post Office Users National Council has underlined the point that the Government keep dodging the issue of price-fixing and how to pay for uneconomic services. It is clear that the Government do so because they have not thought out properly the economics of what they are doing. They have certainly not given the guarantees on pensions.
  The Bill should go no further until the Government are able to state precisely what they intend to do about prices, what they intend to do about access charges and what they intend to do about the funding of pensions. Whatever the Government's business managers say, it is not democratic to be putting a Bill through Parliament which the Government themselves do not know how they will implement. Until the Government know how they will use this legislation, the Bill should be halted. The Government, in trying to get a Bill through Parliament which they will decide later how to use, are acting undemocratically.
  The Bill is damaging to the customer, the equipment manufacturing industry and the staff, whose livelihoods are at stake. I make no apology for opposing it so hard over the past few months. Many of the staff of BT have devoted their lives to building up this public service. They feel betrayed. They feel that their effort and dedication is now to be exploited in the pursuit of private profit. On their behalf, and on the behalf of customers, manufacturers, and Britain itself, I oppose the motion.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: The Bill has made spectacular progress in Committee—spectacularly bad progress. It can be no surprise to hon. Members in the Chamber this evening, or indeed to any hon. Member who has followed the progress of the Bill until now, that it has become necessary today to introduce a timetable motion. The Opposition have expected it—indeed, they have said in Committee on many occasions that it was only a matter of time before the guillotine would fall. The Government have expected it because they have seen hour after hour, day after day, and, indeed, night after night, the progress on the Bill being deliberately held back by the Opposition. The Government need the Bill, and they need it on the statute book in good time.
  One of my hon. Friends calculated that, at the present rate of progress, the Bill would be in Committee for eight years. Frankly, that is a little too long even for the patience and tolerance of Conservative Members. There are limits, and the Opposition have comfortably and magnificently exceeded them in their opposition to the Bill so far.
  Perhaps I should tell the House, or rather those hon. Members who are present but not involved in the Committee on the Bill—there are relatively few present—that we have reached page 3 of the Bill. Before hon. Members assume that page 3 represents the third page in the debate, I should tell them that page 1 is not part of the matter that we have been debating—we have reached
  46
  only the second page. There are 188 pages in the Bill and it has taken lengthy debate to reach that limited stage. It took us five hours to decide that we would meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays in the mornings and afternoons—five hours to reach that important point in the proceedings.
  We have had this time a record length of speech of a mere four hours and eight minutes. That may show that opposition to the Bill is less substantial than it was because the Bill has been tidied up and put into more sensible form than the Bill in the last Parliament, for which the record speech was 11 hours. We spent two and a half hours on the phrase, which was amendment No. 38, "as comprehensively as possible". That debate was brought to a halt only when my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) moved the closure. I suspect that one Opposition Member misread the brief on which the Opposition have relied so extensively when he said, not debate "as comprehensively as possible" but
  "debate for as long and as comprehensively as possible".
  And so they proceeded to do without ever defining what they meant by the word "possible". Some Conservative Members could take them to task for the slackness of the phraseology that they have used from time to time.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is pointing out everyone else's sins. Will he point out that he was responsible for a serious loss of time when he misled his hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology, in that, having just left the Post Office as a salesman, he did not even know what the connection charges were? That cost the Committee some time and the Minister of State some embarrassment in an effort to clear up the misunderstanding.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Trouble maker.
  Mr. Coombs: I hear my hon. Friend say "trouble maker". I thank the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) for his intervention. That occurred during one of the dark hours of the Committee and it enabled him to drag out the proceedings for at least another 10 minutes in discussing the difference between £70 and £75. That is just an example of the way in which the Opposition carried out their business.
  We dealt with amazing matters, such as allowances for civil servants working for the Office of Telecommunications in the future who might have occasion to pay visits to the Scottish islands. There were debates on whether some Scottish islands were nearer to or further from the mainland than other Scottish islands. We had round tours of the constituencies of most of the Members on the Committee, some of which were of outstanding beauty and others that needed to be built up to maintain their reputation. We dealt with the stamina of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—their ability to survive late-night sittings and the chances of their family life being affected by late-night sittings. We dealt with Members' mode of dress—whether it was appropriate that Members should attend in their shirtsleeves, and whether those shirtsleeves should be rolled up or down. Each of those matters was dealt with thoroughly.
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I hope that before my hon. Friend moves on to other points he will tell the

  47
  House that we discussed the civil war on at least three or four occasions. I refer not to a recent civil war, but to the English civil war of the 17th century.
  Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to one of the more exciting moments in Committee. The definition of at least one Opposition Member of whether a person might be a roundhead, a cavalier or a skinhead was dealt with fully and at length.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: The person who was discussing the outcome of the civil war was a Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He laboured under the misapprehension that the Royalist cause won the civil war. Opposition Members have been attempting to put him right, but when he watches the last instalment of the television series "By the Sword Divided" he will know the true result. That shows the grasp of factual knowledge displayed by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. It would be helpful if we returned to the present.
  Mr. Coombs: I was about to do that, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your implied reprimand. I draw the attention of the House to the discussion in Committee on the meaning of the word "maritime". In attempting to improve the Bill, the Government on one occasion—all of the other proposed amendments to the clauses have come from the Opposition—suggested that the words "ship-to-shore" should be replaced by the word "maritime".
  The Committee's proceedings illustrate the type of entertainment to which we were subjected. I quote the words of an Opposition Member who is not present and should perhaps remain anonymous, although the House may guess who he is. He stated:
  "I opened the Oxford English Dictionary. Its first definition of 'maritime' is:
  'Of countries and peoples:Bordering on the sea; living near the sea-coast.'
  That has nowt to do with it.
  Another definition is
  `Of animals, plants, etc.: Living or found near the sea.'
  Definition 3 in the Oxford English Dictionary is
  'Of a fighting force: Intended for service at sea.'
  I hope that the amendment has nothing to do with a fighting force or anything so belligerent.
  Definition 4, which is perhaps relevant—I do not know—states:
  'Of, pertaining to, arising from, or existing in, the sea.'
  I think that we are bothered not about the sea but about ships, and so on. What about oil rigs? We are bothered about people, ships, perhaps oil rigs and other means of being at sea.
  The fifth definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is:
  `Characteristic of a seaman, nautical.'
  After reading that dictionary, we must surely question whether the Government are using the right word."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 November 1983, c. 588.]
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: My hon. Friend's experience on the Committee seems very like that of the rest of us on other Committees that have been guillotined. Does he accept that, as he extends his parliamentary career, he will have the same sort of entertaining and educative discussion on many other Committees? If that is the case, will he be an early convert to the idea that all Standing Committees should have an arranged timetable from the beginning so
  48
  that the expansive education through which we must go is curtailed and the relevant matters are given proper time for discussion?
  Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend raising that issue. I shall return to it later in my remarks.
  Amid the welter of verbiage from the Opposition, it has been clearly put across to us that an outworn knowledge of British Telecom is displayed by Opposition Members. They appear to be unaware of the changed attitude that pervades British Telecom as a result of its gradual progress towards competition. The basis of the Bill remains the same. We are attempting a steady move towards liberalisation and competition which was begun in the 1981 Act and brought forward in the sense that attachments to the network have been liberalised to a substantial extent. This liberalisation will be increased as a result of the statement on competition policy made last Thursday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We see the beginnings of competition within the network by the provision of an alternative network in Mercury communications. We envisage that the customers of British Telecom will be protected by the licence.
  This measure was put before the Committee on the first day of the sequence of sittings on 25 October. It includes the rural and residential customers, users of call boxes, emergency, information and maritime services. A privatised British Telecom will thus not be able to ignore the interests of those users of services. Once we had a chance to read the licence it became clear that the wild campaign put across by the Opposition was nonsense. That is why we had to listen to the farrago of irrelevancies which I quoted.
  The Bill and the licence allow for interconnection with other networks to guarantee that all consumers of telecommunications services have an opportunity to communicate with all other consumers. We propose to outlaw cross-subsidisation because that is a way in which British Telecom would be able to dodge its responsibilities. We have insisted that access charges are made available to fund any loss-making services. The Opposition could read the licence in black and white. I suspect that, having read it, they despaired of having anything with which to attack us.
  In answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), I say that the whole of the process through which we are passing has nothing to do with the rights of pensioners of British Telecom. We have all received letters from pensioners of that organisation. The trust funds set up for those pensioners are unaffected by the legislation. This is one example of the kind of scare story that was thrown at us during those 70-plus hours of Committee discussion. It shows the panic that has been spread by the Opposition in Committee and outside.
  We might be charitable to a degree and congratulate the Opposition when one opinion poll shows that some people are unhappy with what is happening. It is not surprising, in the light of the propaganda war that has been carried on, that some people are concerned. We recognise those worries. The legislation aims to ensure that those concerns are groundless. The future will demonstrate that those fears are groundless.
  We have had an extensive debate on the wording of the Bill. Latterly we have debated the amendment that we should promote the interests of manufacturers of

  49
  telecommunications apparatus. My hon. Friends who have sat with me during the debate will recognise those words from last Thursday's debate. Do the words
  "to promote the interests of manufacturers of telecommunication apparatus"
  include Japanese, American, French, Swiss and Swedish manufacturers? Nothing in the proposed amendment shows that we are talking solely about United Kingdom manufacturers. When I pointed that out to the Opposition, one hon. Member said that that was probably so, one said that it was probably not so and a third said that they would deal with it on Report. We wait with interest to see whether anything better will turn up next time. The woolliness of many of the amendments and the arguments in support of them has been painful to listen to at such length.
  There is a danger in erecting trade barriers. That is what promoting the interests of manufacturers means. It means putting up barriers to prevent foreign competition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear some Opposition Members saying, "Hear, hear." One hon. Member who is not in the Chamber said that that was not what he meant, but I believe that it is the general view of the Opposition. United Kingdom manufacturers must export to make a profit. They cannot rely on the home market. If they cannot export, they will lose the competitive edge on which they must rely to be successful. That is the danger of the Opposition's argument.
  The Opposition's argument about loss of jobs and opportunities is utterly bogus. The telecommunications industry is growing so fast and so strongly that there will be jobs, profits and success for all who enter the industry, whether it be a privatised British Telecom or any of the firms with which it will compete in the future.
  As a new Member of Parliament, I am fascinated to watch the performance and the contortions of the Opposition, but their behaviour makes a mockery of our procedures. Indeed, both sides indulge in a ritual dance in their approach to legislation. Whatever the legislation, we must surely all agree that only a certain amount of time can be devoted to it. The question is whether the whole of that time should be spent seriously and constructively debating the Bill, or whether, as at present, the first half or even three quarters of the time available should be spent in pointless time wasting and the last fraction in a mad scramble to sort out the remaining 100 or so clauses.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), I must therefore say that I am a convert to the proposal that the Procedure Committee should examine the whole basis on which Bills are considered in Committee, especially measures as important as the one now before us. Both sides know that there should be a proper chance to discuss matters of real importance. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit and wisdom of those who manage the affairs of the House to ensure that time is available for consideration—lengthy and even all-night consideration, if necessary, but sensible and constructive consideration—of the matters in hand.
  So far, I have not talked to any hon. Member who opposes that principle. I therefore hope that every effort will be made by all of us to achieve the right result. In the meantime, I trust and I know that the Government will press on and get this legislation on to the statute book. I commit myself—I am sure that all my hon. Friends will do the same—to sensible and constructive discussion of the Bill in the remaining time available. Meanwhile, we
  50
  must support the motion, as we cannot be sure whether any of us will be here in eight years' time if the present rate of progress is maintained.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Both before and since the general election, the Minister has repeatedly told the House and the country that the purpose of the Bill is innovation and liberalisation. There is no doubt that the Bill is innovative and that in a certain sense it will liberalise the telecommunications network in this country. In the light of the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), however, the Minister must agree that such innovation and liberalisation is sadly treated when it has to be dealt with through archaic mechanisms and suffers from the cosy, two-party constraints of this and all British Parliaments.
  When the Committee debated its sittings motion, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) had a great deal to say about my own and other constituencies and the need for members of the Committee to have time to deal with their constituency business as well as to contribute to the work of the Committee. The Minister assured us that there would be time to discuss the many issues in the Bill, which would affect my constituency and many others. There has been some discussion along those lines, but I am sure that there has not been so much as the Minister and members on both sides of the Committee would have wished.
  The problem is not only party tactics, about which we hear so much from Labour and Conservative Members, but the whole system under which we work, which does not do justice to democracy or to the proper examination of the issues. The system lets down Members of Parliament and the people who voted for them, whatever their party affiliations.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has achieved considerable fame—or infamy—in the tangled history of the privatisation of British Telecom. Nevertheless, he has consistently shown his willingness to debate the issues sincerely. Somewhere along the way, however, the Government have departed from their own original claims, on which the Opposition wished to argue the matter, and in the resulting vacuum there has been a complete loss of argument.
  The Government talked about competition and liberalisation. Only last week, however, they informed us that competition and liberalisation would take the form of two major companies—Mercury and BT. That is scarcely a full-scale policy or programme for liberalisation and competitiveness, nor is it the rhetoric of the election campaign in June or the Minister's defence of the proposal in the Committee, the House and the country.
  If the Bill is passed, it will institutionalise two giants—Mercury and BT—in the telecommunications industry. That will be as reprehensible, as unhealthy and as undemocratic as the instituionalisation of the two-party system in the work of the House and in the politics of the nation. It is regrettable that public debate on a major issue of this nature should be reduced to puerile denouncements by the two major parties. The SDP-Liberal alliance wishes to distance itself entirely from that process, which we find regrettable in the extreme.
  The hon. Member for Swindon spoke of the ritual dance which the two main parties go through. That was an appropriate description. It is ritual in that, while it takes

  51
  place, it has an almost tribal quality. It is not up to date or relevant to political reality. That ritual dance undermines the quality and content of our politics and the way in which they are carried out. That must be changed. The necessity for change is underlined by the situation in which we find ourselves today. It is extremely regrettable that we face such circumstances. The matter could be dealt with better. In his heart of hearts, the Minister, like almost every right hon. and hon. Member, will agree with that.
  Instead of serious public debate and qualitative deliberation of the issues, we increasingly have
  sportsmanship and duelling by the two old parties rather than an assertion of the realistic centre of the issue on privatisation. That has happened because the Government have deserted their claims and because the Opposition have used the only instrument that is open to them in the unhealthy workings of Parliament. I can do no better than quote a former Social Democratic Member of Parliemant who was involved in this issue. On 16 February this year he said:
  "This House is rightly regarded throughout the free world as the mother of Parliaments. On occasions such as this, however, we set an example which, if more people read the background, would make us a public laughing stock. We criticise British management both in the public and in the private sector for incompetence, we rap the trade unions over the knuckles for using outdated and harmful practices, yet we participate in and run a system that is inefficient and archaic to the point of imbecility."—[Official Report, 16 February 1983; Vol 37, c. 325.]
  The Bill is profoundly important and raises wide issues concerning public and private participation in telecommunications. It also raises important ideological issues about how the representatives of the people view the economy and its development. Surely we have reached the point of imbecility when the arguments are deserted amid the and pros and cons of the old, failed and outdated two-party system.
  My party hopes that, despite the excessive curtailment of the Bill which the Governent have imposed, there will be opportunities for more debate and discussion on it. However, neither the Social Democrats nor the Liberal party can support the timetable motion. We hope that, one day, timetable motions will not be necessary because, with the widespread reforms in Britain's politics which are so badly needed, there will be parliamentary reform, which will make the two party "in-House" game redundant and irrelevant. It is redundant and should be dispensed with.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) as I have had few such opportunities to speak in Committee. The hon. Member criticised our system in Committee and complained that we have not had the opportunity to discuss some of the serious items in the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman has not attended the Committee often. Out of the 37 Divisions that we had in Committee, he has been present for only 14. That compares poorly with the attendance of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) who has voted in 30. In other words, my hon. Friend has attended more than twice as often as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to debate the issues, but he voted against the sittings motion, which took
  52
  five hours to debate. We should have had far more opportunity to discuss the Bill, which he seems so enthusiastic to debate but never turned up to debate, had he voted for the sittings motion, and done so before it had been discussed for five hours. In other words, the hon. Gentleman wanted that debate to go on and on. We were merely discussing whether to sit on Tuesday and Thursday morning and afternoon. It is not constructive for the hon. Gentleman to say that he wishes that he could have had an opportunity to discuss the issues when he did not turn up to discuss them or to vote.
  Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many speeches he made in Committee as compared with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) whom he has just attacked?
  Mr. Hayward: I cannot remember precisely how many, but I know that I made several speeches. I also made several interventions in the speeches of the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). According to the records maintained by the Clerk to the Committee, I have voted in every division.
  Mr. Golding: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on saying "Aye" or "No" 37 times. Does he agree that when the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye attended, he made a speech whereas Conservative Members sat like dumb mutes?
  Mr. Hayward: No. I have made several interventions and speeches. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having said "Aye" or "No" 37 times, always in contradiction of me. In the light of that, I am sure that he will recognise that I have made several speeches at all hours. My first speech began at 3.50 am.
  Mr. Kennedy: I should like the hon. Gentleman to clarify his last reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). Does he not accept that when I have attended the Committee I have made a speech? Does he further agree that that is a considerably better performance than that of the vast majority of poodles on the Conservative Benches, who raised their hands in silent support of the Government?
  Mr. Hayward: As I said at the most recent sitting of the Committee, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye raised points that had already been debated at length by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central on previous occasions.
  It has been argued that the timetable motion is a matter of great import for the House. It is, and rightly so. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said that it is opposed throughout the British telecommonications industry and that there is much antipathy towards the Bill.
  Mr. Golding: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me when I have ever used words such as "antipathy"? It is an outrage, certainly.
  Mr. Hayward: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. Employees of BT are so outraged by the Bill that, after I refereed a rugby match in which BT employees were playing last Saturday, they bought me several beers.
  Mr. Golding: That was because of the hon. Gentleman's decisions.
  Mr. Hayward: Many hon. Members have complained about the number of guillotine motions and the archaic

  53
  system from which we suffer in Committee. I should like to echo those comments by quoting from a previous debate. These comments were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) in the debate on the previous timetable motion, and are worth reconsidering. He said:

  "My research tells me that during the 1940s—admittedly they were war years—only three Bills were guillotined … In the 1950s, six Bills were guillotined. In the 1960s, 13 Bills were guillotined and in the 1970s, 21 Bills were guillotined. If we continue as we are … we are heading for the guillotining of a minimum of 30 Bills in the 1980s".—[Official Report, 16 February 1983, Vol. 37, c. 320–1.]
  Indeed, we may actually reach 40. My hon. Friend also said that the public feels that in Committee we give due consideration to Bills and that it is a display of manly competence to drive a Government to introduce a guillotine. That is not an acceptable method of considering whether to oppose a filibuster.
  In opposition there is a responsibility to oppose reasonably and constructively. That is my understanding of the duty of any Opposition. I therefore suggest that any Opposition should consider two questions before embarking on a filibuster. First, will the Bill be better as a result and, secondly, will anything be achieved if a filibuster drives the Government to introduce a guillotine?
  To the question, "Is this a better Bill as a result of the filibuster to which the Committee has been subjected over the past few weeks?", the answer must be no. Every clause and virtually every word that we have examined was considered at great length by the previous Committee in the previous Parliament. Therefore, it cannot be said that as a result of this filibuster we have a better Bill before us.
  To the question, "Can we defeat the Bill by such a filibuster?", the answer was given in the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He said that the Opposition had known from day one that there would be a guillotine and that a filibuster would not defeat the Bill. Therefore, Labour Members have failed as an Opposition.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman's comments are worth considering because it is in the long-term interests of Parliament to decide quickly about how an Opposition should work in their consideration of Bills. The hour-after-hour consideration of words and clauses, so ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), does nothing for Parliament or this Chamber.
  Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should determine the tactics of the Opposition?
  Mr. Hayward: No. I was suggesting, I hope lucidly, that any Opposition should consider the purpose of a filibuster and ask a number of questions before embarking on one. I also wonder whether we should allow a filibuster to take the form that it does now or whether we should have an alternative Committee structure.
  Mr. Ewing: When the hon. Gentleman reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that his suggestion was that the Government should consider how Oppositions should conduct themselves when opposing Bills. That is a dangerous statement and I hope that he will reconsider it.
  Mr. Hayward: I did not intend to make such a comment, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I was trying to identify the responsibilities that
  54
  lie on any Opposition of whatever persuasion. Those were the words I intended to use. I was not suggesting that a Government should dictate the route to be followed by an Opposition.
  The rules of debate in Committee, and possibly within this Chamber, should allow Members the opportunity to oppose and make their points at reasonable length and in reasonable depth, but they should not be able to do so over many hours when it can be done in a shorter time.
  For those reasons, we should vote for the timetable motion. I do not believe that continuing along the route that we have pursued over the last few weeks is a compliment to Parliament or the Committee on which we sit. In many ways, it is a comment on the members of that Committee. I support a reconsideration by the Select Committee on Procedure of the rules of Standing Committees so that we are not subjected to the filibusters that this and other Committees have faced. Tonight we should vote for the timetable motion and at a later stage give a considered judgment on changing the rules of Standing Committees.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: The Opposition are accused by the Leader of the House of delay and obstruction. We reject that charge. We have not delayed or obstructed, we have opposed with reason, intelligence and great determination. We shall continue to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Committee's long debate on the civil war contributed to the problems of British Telecom?
  Mr. Fisher: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have known that it was the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who speculated on the civil war, not Labour Members.
  Mr. Golding: Is it not surprising that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who has demanded this bulldozing from the Government, should be absent? Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Gentleman is now watching the television series on the civil war on Sunday night and that he will have a shock when he finds out who wins?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We need not debate the civil war again.
  Mr. Fisher: We have opposed, because this is a bad Bill—politically in what it seeks to do and technically in how it is drafted. If it is enacted, it will sell off £4,000 million of public assets to private speculators, many of whom will be foreign. It will mean higher charges and a worse service to all private telephone subscribers. In particular, it will harm the elderly, the disabled, those who live alone, those on low incomes and those who live in rural areas.
  The Bill will sell out the idea and ideal of public service, which has dominated the industry for the past 70 years, and replace it with a scramble for private profits. It will mean the end of one scale of charges and one quality of service, whether one lives in the Shetlands or in Shepherds Bush. It will mean that the interests of private subscribers will be sacrificed to the demands of a handful of big businesses, particularly the 300 large public corporations that provide 30 per cent. of BT's revenue.

  55
  The Leader of the House said that we had delayed unnecessarily. He has either been misinformed or has not read his Hansard. Certainly he has not attended any of our sittings to check on the progress of the Committee. If he had done so, he might have appreciated that the first three clauses are the Bill's key clauses. They are the mechanics and driving force by which the industry is to be destroyed by the Government. In 75 hours of debate, 25 amendments have been completed—three hours of debate per amendment. The debates have considered matters such as the creation and financing of what is effectively a new Government Department or quango in the Office of Telecommunications. The Leader of the House said that that was a simple matter. Does he consider that the creation of an office with a staff of 50 and a budget of 1·5 million is a simple matter not worthy of consideration by hon. Members?
  We have considered the abolition by the Government of the Post Office Users National Council—the means by which consumer interests are protected—the abolition of the protection of services in rural areas, the destruction of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of rural public call boxes, the future of operator services, the emergency services, the interests of the disabled, the handicapped and other vulnerable groups. We have also considered at length the conflict between business and residential subscribers, which is at the heart of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has most effectively said that we have been considering the future of the telecommunications manufacturing industry. If the Bill is enacted, the industry's future will be bleak. Are such matters not worthy of consideration? When one listens to the scope and scale of the debates, one might ask how we have managed to debate each subject in a mere three hours. Perhaps we have been failing in our duty by not giving them more scrutiny.
  Some of the 25 amendments that have been discussed were tabled by the Government. Of the 109 amendments table so far, no fewer than 59—more than half—were tabled by the Government. That is a reflection of the Bill's complexity or, more accurately, of the Government's recognition that they have not yet got the Bill right even by their own lights. That shows that further time is necessary for the House to consider such a monumental Bill.
  All of the Opposition's amendments could be described as constructive. Not one of the amendments so far debated could possibly be described, even by Conservative Members, as a wrecking amendment. Given the enormity of the subject, the sums of public money involved and the Bill's technical complexity, surprising progress has been made. However, far more progress would have been made had the Government taken a more constructive and flexible approach.
  The Minister and the Under-Secretary of State agreed, on their own admission, with the spirit of the Opposition's amendments but they opposed them because they said that the protection that we sought for the rural areas, the disabled and residential consumers was contained in the Government's draft licence. In their opinion, that was sufficient. We have disagreed with, and disproved, that assertion in Committee. Only by legislation can such interests be properly protected. If the Government were
  56
  serious in wanting progress and if they really meant to protect subscribers, they would have lost nothing by accepting the Opposition's amendments, but they have not accepted any.
  The Government then had the nerve to accuse the Opposition of delaying the Bill's progress when they could easily have facilitated it. The truth is that the Government are not taking the Committee stage seriously. Of the Conservative Back Benchers in the Committee five have made a total of seven speeches in 75 hours. What cynicism, or, perhaps, discipline by the Government Whip. What lack of interest they have shown in the telephone services that will in future be provided to their constituents. Those hon. Members have sat in total silence except to vote "No", against the interests of those in rural areas, against the disabled and against every other protection that the Opposition have sought to write into the Bill.
  Mr. Coombs: I seek clarification from the hon. Gentleman. He said that the Conservative members of the Committee made seven speeches and then said that the same hon. Members had sat in total silence. Is he suggesting that nothing was said in the speeches?
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. Nothing whatever was said in those seven speeches. They were totally vacuous.
  The Minister and the Under-Secretary have advanced the only arguments in their role as apologists for the Government's case. They are men of some goodwill. They know that they are acting against the public interest. Time and again they have conceded the argument and fallen back on the plea that the protection sought is covered by the licence. I admit that they are right in principle. Every condition in the licence covers some protection for the interests of groups that we seek to protect. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary, in their innocence, or disingenuousness, ignore the fact that in practice the licence will not protect one person. It is not worth the paper on which it is written. Every condition in the licence is instantly qualified by phrases such, "so far as it is practicable", "if reasonable", or "where economic considerations permit". The sad truth is that the Government have lost the argument in Committee, and have lost confidence in their own case. They now know, as we have explained to them, the weaknesses at the heart of the Bill. They know that their claims made in fine words and fine rhetoric for free competition are bogus. There will be no free competition once the Bill is enacted. The 'Government are replacing a good public service monopoly with a thoroughly disreputable duopoly, which will give neither public competition nor service. They know that the fairness of the competition that they claim to seek will be non-existent after the Bill is enacted, as they are setting up by structure and legislation a position in which British Telecom, far from having to compete with Mercury, will have to assist Mercury to compete aginst it. British Telecom will have to operate against its own interests. So much for competition. The Government know that once private shareholders control the company, they will ditch all recommendations and assurances about the public service given by the Government.
  A senior City stockbroker is reported to have said, "If there are difficulties after the Bill is enacted and the cost of rural services are found to be too expensive, don't

  57
  worry, we will be able to go back to the Government and ask them to take this off our hands. We cannot run a profitable corporation like this." When that was mentioned in Committee the Government did not deny, refute or speak against it.
  The Minister and the Under-Secretary appreciate that precedents in the United States warn us against the Bill. There are 200,000 pieces of evidence at present before the Senate complaining about the break-up of American Telephone and Telegraph's monopoly and public service in exactly the same way as we are breaking up the BT monopoly in this country. We have told the Government that the shares of AT and T have slumped by $5·5 per share because of the difficulties that it has experienced.
  The sad truth is that the Government have conducted their case—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said—not in Committee, but in the press. They have also conducted it indirectly through an advertising campaign, paid for out of the revenues received by BT from all telephone subscribers—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members may not think that that is important, but I believe that such a Bill should be debated before Members of Parliament, and that public money should not be used to defend something that the Government are incapable of defending in Committee.
  The advertising campaign distorts, misleads and sloganises the issues. Newspaper readers are presented with what is called "the truth" and "the facts" from BT. However, it is a truth that bends on the page as it is read, and the facts are just not facts at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, in the advertisement the draft licence is referred to as being granted by Parliament, but on the licence it is said that it is granted by the Secretary of State. The Minister knows perfectly well that the Secretary of State is not Parliament. In Committee, the Minister cited those advertisements in defence of his case.
  The Government's determination to succeed with the Bill is due partly to their blind dogma, which defies logic and education, by us, in Committee. The Leader of the House said that the Bill was "central to the Government's economic strategy". What does that mean? It means that the Government want £4,000 million from the sale of BT so that they can bolster their sagging and disastrous economic policy. It is interesting to note that by including a figure of only £1·9 billion for sales of public corporations in the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least recognises the difficulties involved, just as the Government's advisers, Kleinwort, Benson, do.
  Last Thursday a Conservative Member referred to that process as flogging the silver to pay the bills. The Government's economic policy is disgraceful and irresponsible, although perhaps that is not surprising after last Thursday's announcement that this country is to be taxed by means of gas and electricity price rises. To their discredit, the Government are determined, come what may, to sell off and destroy our national service. It is one of the best telecommunications services in the world. In pursuing that objective they misused the Committee stage, and, now that they have lost the argument in Committee, they want to end the debate. As the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) has said, this motion will lead to a mad scramble. It is quite ludicrous. If the Government say that it is our fault that we have only got so far, how
  58
  can they then say that three and a half days is sufficient time in which to debate the rest of the Bill? That is an absolute disgrace.
  We have opposed, and will continue to oppose, the Bill in the interests of those who work in the industry and of private telephone subscribers throughout the United Kingdom. There has never before been such an important and lengthy Bill, which seeks to sell off a great public asset and to abolish a public service that Governments of all parties have been proud to support for 70 years. For that reason, we believe that the House and the Committee need time, yet the Government have given us only three and a half days. In his heart the Minister knows that that is wrong, and that what is being done today is wrong. Accordingly, we totally oppose the motion, just as we shall continue utterly to oppose the Bill—and we shall be proved right.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Timothy Wood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on his excellent speech. It is particularly pleasant that, despite having listened to long and turgid speeches in Committee week after week, he was still able to present a concise and effective case for the Bill. Like him, I have been a member of the Committee that has considered the Bill during the past few weeks. I have listened to the Opposition's prolonged filibuster. The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) have excelled in their ability to use 100 words where one would do. They and other Opposition Members have ensured that the Committee has progressed only as far as clause 3.
  I wondered why the Leader of the Labour party was apparently selected on the basis of his ability to use 10 words where one would do. However, I now realise that it is an important part of effective opposition to delay and frustrate and that a torrent of words can help to achieve that aim. In the past four weeks I have learned where the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme buys his suits, purchases his domestic appliances and does his other shopping.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I joined the Committee about two weeks ago, and when I entered the Committee room I heard the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) say:
  "The hon. Gentleman should do up his jacket."
  The Chairman then said:
  "Order. We cannot have these exchanges across the Committee Floor."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) then said:
  "Surely I should be protected from the hon. Gentleman's sedentary remarks."
  The Chairman replied:
  "Order. That is precisely what I am trying to do."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 November 1983; c. 356.]
  That is the sort of nonsense that we heard from Conservative Members, and it appears in Hansard for all to see.
  Mr. Wood: Of course, that intervention gave Opposition Members an opportunity to spend another quarter of an hour or so on the theme of dress and clothing.
  We have also learnt that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is a gambling man who enjoys a

  59
  spot of fishing. He can be extremely entertaining, but my understanding is that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee found some of his contributions more sleep-than thought-provoking. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman admitted that he had sent the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central to sleep while driving him home by rehearsing one of his speeches. In that regard, I sympathise with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
  From time to time the Opposition have resorted to what have been described as probing amendments. However, they have been enveloped by so many words that the point of the probe has been lost as effectively as a needle in a haystack. Those listening to an Opposition speech sometimes felt like travellers in a desert—the words were as plentiful as sand, while the search for a point to the argument was like looking for an oasis. The occasional vision of the point of the argument was a bit like a mirage that had been wafted up on the hot air produced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
  It would, of course, be wholly wrong to say that Opposition Members have said nothing relevant to the Bill. Frequently they have gone into a wealth of detail which would have been much more appropriate to consideration of later clauses and amendments. Many of the arguments that are relevant to later parts of the Bill have already been presented to the Committee. Overall, the Opposition demonstrated that they were opposed to every aspect of the Bill, just as they have done again today.
  Protection of the status quo and a fear of progress and change seem to dominate the thinking of a so-called radical party. Competition is regarded with dismay. Opposition Members have admitted that historically British Telecom's marketing has been weak, but that is to be expected with a captive market. Whatever the supporters of public service may say, there is no doubt that customers benefit from choice. A customer can place more pressure on a supplier to provide what he wants if the customer can go to someone else if he is dissatisfied.
  I believe that the scope for advance in telecommunications is immense. There will be huge growth over the next decade, particularly in data traffic between computer networks. The freedoms given to telecommunications and related industries by the Bill will be of inestimable benefit. At the same time, the Bill and the licences go to considerable and effective lengths to protect the interests of the customers, those in rural areas, those using call boxes, maritime services and so on. It is not true to suggest that the Bill has ignored those matters.
  In all their work in relation to this Bill and the previous Bill the Government have sought to protect the interests of various minority groups who might use the services.
  Mr. Fisher: The Government may have sought that protection, but they have not found it.
  Mr. Wood: The Bill and the licences amply demonstrate that that protection is afforded. The Bill will be a force for good and must be passed without further filibustering. All Opposition Members have been anxious to gain battle honours from the British Telecom unions. If delaying tactics can be regarded as an honour, the union leadership should shower the Opposition with honour. If there is genuine interest, I believe that the Opposition
  60
  would have better served those working in telecommunications and the customers had they briskly debated the details of the Bill. Burying arguments in a mass of words serves not to further those arguments with the Government; it serves not to improve the Bill one iota. The Bill has not been improved during the four weeks that we have discussed it, except by one Government amendment.
  That has been a disappointment to me, because I believe that there are many details in the Bill which could profitably and reasonably have been discussed. Instead, we have had a fatuous series of contributions from Opposition Members who profess a belief in public service but, at the same time, do not further the cause of the public who should be benefiting from their activities.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I am taking part in the debate because I believe that through the Bill the Government are attempting to sell assets which are crucial not just strategically in terms of the future development of our industry, information technology and such matters, but in sheer value. This is a massive programme of privatisation. Many Conservative Members make the assumption that nothing will work unless it is privatised, particularly in telecommunications.
  The telephone system in my constituency is not privatised; it is municipalised and successful. Anyone who doubts that should come to Kingston upon Hull. The subscribers and customers there will confirm that the system is good, that it responds to need, and that it has good tariff structures, all of which have manifested themselves in a ratio of telephone usage above the national average. That should help to destroy the argument by Conservative Members that things cannot work unless they are privatised.
  There has not been a full debate on the Bill. A number of crucial questions remain unanswered and many issues need to be debated fully. I do not understand why the Government are attempting to rush through the Bill in the way that they are.
  One of my hon. Friends mentioned that there is a large number of Government amendments, suggesting clearly that the Bill still needs a considerable amount of work, thought and debate. Important differences between the previous Bill and this one add to the argument for continuing the debate.
  One important aspect of the Bill is the effect of the Government's proposals upon the manufacturing industry. If the Bill becomes law, the telecommunications supply industry will be devastated by the Government's proposals. That part of the industry is the cornerstone of the future information technology industry. We are talking about switching equipment, telephones, telegraph, exchanges, switchboards and so on. The number of people working in the industry is not trivial. In 1982 the industry had 61,000 jobs. Under the Bill those jobs are vulnerable. The industry has annual sales amounting to £1·3 billion, which is far from trivial, and a surplus on balance of payments. We shall inevitably have electronic mail, electronic shopping from home, the chequeless and cashless society and the electronic transfer of funds, but all that could well be impaired.
  I am worried about the Government's lack of understanding and appreciation of the telecommunications market. There is a great deal of evidence that a number of

  61
  substantial multinational companies, particularly American, are intent on coming into the market in this country and taking over. It is worth stressing that these corporations have enormous resources in term of people, skills and technology, and the will to succeed. They are ruthless and will use whatever means are available to win.
  The Bill mentions a free market in telecommunications. That is what the Bill is all about. If multinational companies take over, how will we cope with competition from overseas suppliers whose products are subsidised by Government grants so that they can be imported at below cost? Will the Minister answer that question? Will the Government intervene in the market, or will we lose the order? People working in the telecommunications industry are interested in the answers to those questions.
  Lord Weinstock, the head of GEC, does not want the Bill to go through. Why not? I believe that he feels that the industry could well be lost.
  The Government say that they want competition. There is a difference between fair competition and competition that is unfair because Governments provide subsidies and so on. Some people say that we do not need to worry about that, because BT will shovel the orders its way, and the industry will be nursed because it will receive orders from BT. Sir George Jefferson, the head of BT, said that he would have a procurement policy based on the long-term cost-effectiveness of the industry, irrespective of country of origin. He is saying, "I shall not be responsible. I shall not make a contribution to nursing British industry. I shall do what is best for me. If I can buy Japanese equipment at £100 a line, which is well below cost, I shall do so." That attitude is wrong. There are broader interests than BT's profit and loss statement. We must take into account the broader economic factors and the possible result of the devastation of the industry. What will the Government do? Will they intervene when other Governments give subsidies to support products that could be selected for import to this country?
  The hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) is a free market man. He believes that we must pull ourselves up by our boot straps. I am not saying that in this day and age we do not have to be competitive. The Opposition accept the notion of competition. It would be foolish and naive not to do so. I say that in all sincerity. However, what confuses me is that the Government say, "Let us allow a flood of imports from overseas to our home market and then let us compensate by increasing our exports." That is naive in the extreme. Only 9 per cent. of products manufactured in this country go overseas. Therefore, this country's telecommunications industry does not have the overseas base to counter the effect of the flood of imports that could take place if the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Wood: There are two points on which I should like to intervene. First, the Government have not said, "Let us have free competition without any protection." They have set up a licensing arrangement that will offer protection until various companies get under way and become effective. Secondly, the telecommunications supply industries have not exported well. One of the reasons is that at home they have had a protected and safe market with a certain purchase so the stimulus for selling overseas has been limited.
  Mr. Randall: I am interested to hear that the Government will intervene and provide the protection that
  62
  the Opposition advocate. However, it is interesting that there is no mention of that in the Bill. That is a serious omission.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point about exports. One must take into account the history of BT. Until only a few years ago BT's main problem was providing a telephone for every house. It was short of investment and nearly all its resources were put into getting the line plant and the switching equipment in to provide everyone with the basic black telephone. Only in recent years has BT emerged from that situation. BT has not responded to the market in the way that it could have done, but there is a change now, which I welcome. However, I make it absolutely clear that BT was impeded through lack of investment over the years when it was attempting to make the basic telephone system operational.
  The Government's strategy is dangerous for the telecommunications industry. We are opening up our home market. I do not believe that there is a serious prospect of our making substantial inroads into overseas markets. The Bill will result in the decline of British manufacturing industry, certainly in the short term, until we build up new product ranges and develop alliances 'with other manufacturers overseas. The consequence will be the slowing down of research and development in this country, the relabelling overseas of products, and so on. Therefore, the Government's strategy is weak. They have not thought through their proposals.
  The Government do not understand the telecomrnunications market. They have not appreciated and fully understood the extent of the competition from overseas that will ensue if the Bill is passed. The Government do not fully understand the consequences of what they are embarking on. For that reason, I reject the motion.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am the first Member to be called to speak who is not on the Committee considering the Telecommunications Bill. I am speaking because I want to talk about the general principle of timetable motions.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I support the Bill. It is essential if British Telecom is to have a future in what has become not an isolated island business but one that embraces the world, and therefore one in which we must compete with all the other giant companies in this dynamic, fast developing industry. The Bill, by providing for competition, will nurture initiative and pride in that business, which will be able to take on the Japanese, Americans, Germans and others. If BT is to do that it must be free from the constraints of the public sector. It must be free if it wants to be able to go out into the private market to raise finance and invest in the way that it thinks is necessary. It cannot do that at present. I support the Bill also because I am convinced that the customer, who must come first, is protected.
  I want to talk about the timetable motion, because I understand the problem. In the previous Parliament I was on the Committees on two Bills that were guillotined. Therefore, I have experienced endless hours of discussion through the night, when the debate meandered on. Some of the banter that was recounted today sounded familiar. We want through the dictionary. I understand that the Committee embraced the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps that was good in that it made hon. Members more

  63
  articulate, but it would hardly enlighten them on this subject. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) for exposing that fact.
  The Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, which dealt with developments in the North sea, provided an opportunity to explore the oceans of the world with a fair degree of concentration. Of course, those oceans lapped the shores of many different continents, and it was not long before we strayed into the Brazilian jungle or the Indonesian archipelago. That Bill became the subject of a guillotine motion, and rightly so. It is because I realise the nonsense of endless debates that I shall support the timetable motion tonight.
  I want to touch on a matter of general principle relating to timetable motions. Both sides of the House recognise that some Bills will be guillotined. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that he knew from the start of the discussions on the Bill that it would eventually be guillotined.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend said that everyone who had spoken in the debate was a member of Committee. We are sorry that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) does not serve on the Committee.
  Mr. Carlisle: I thank my hon. Friend for making an interesting point. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's strong feelings about the Bill, he has been absent from the Committee——
  Mr. Golding rose——
  Mr. Carlisle: I am answering the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I shall give way.
  If the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney had such strong feelings——
  Mr. Ewing: Why is the Secretary of State not on the Committee?
  Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) answer that question? When the Secretary of State joins the Committee, no doubt my right hon. Friend will do so also.
  Mr. Carlisle: That is true.
  Both sides of the House recognise that Bills will be guillotined quite simply because, first, many Bills are controversial and will meet endless opposition and, secondly, because those Bills are essential to the Government's programme. As a guillotine motion is inevitable in the long run, it should be recognised as being of general practice and application. If the House is to reform the procedure, its first step must be to accept that timetable motions are inevitable. A timetable motion usually comes after about 80 hours of filibustering and wide, irrelevant debate. We then have 80 hours, or less, of constructive argument. It is during that latter period that sensible amendments are made.
  It is, therefore, fair to ask why we should not arrange a timetable at the beginning of Bills that everyone accepts will be guillotined eventually. Other hon. Members have already made that point today. It would be of benefit not
  64
  only to the Government, but to the Opposition who would know that they had a certain time in which to put forward their arguments.
  It is my experience in Standing Committee that relevant and good amendments are made if they are discussed properly. Governments are not blind to sensible arguments, but they are blind to filibustering and long hours of wasted effort that lead to no constructive solution and leave far too little time for the arguments about the real merits or mistakes of a Bill.
  Hon. Members, especially old-timers, often say that timetables cannot be agreed because time is the only weapon available to the Opposition. That is nonsense. If we accept that a guillotine is inevitable, time is not a weapon but a ploy for a wasting half the time available contructively to debate the Bill. The House must recognise that for many Bills, if not all Bills, our procedure in Committee is not good enough. It is time that it was reformed.
  I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say today that he hopes the Select Committee on Procedure will sit before long, with a new programme before it. He said that he more than hoped it would discuss the procedure for Standing Committees. We will serve the public who send us here much better if, with measures such as the Telecommunications Bill, a timetable is agreed from the beginning so that serious matters can be given full and constructive debate. All hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, will then know that they do not have to filibuster but, in a few words, can put their points constructively and effectively.
  If we can achieve that reform, I am convinced that Parliament will serve the public better and will treat in a much more distinguished manner the many serious matters that come before it.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: It has been an interesting debate and, in many ways, not the traditional timetable motion debate. Much of it has been taken up with the contents and the general principles of the Bill. That is right and proper, because the principles of the Bill have led the House to debate a timetable motion.
  I want to begin where the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) ended—the constant proposal throughout the debate that when the Select Committee on Procedure is established it should consider an arrangement whereby Oppositions and Governments agree a timetable motion, obviously on Second Reading.
  Other procedures of the House should command the priority attention of such a Select Committee—for example, the scandal of our proceedings on Friday when private Members' time was usurped by Government Whips whipping Members through the Lobby to vote against an important private Member's Bill that would have benefited the disabled. If there are scandals in our procedures, surely the scandal of Friday is of greater priority than our discussion today.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Lincoln that when the Labour party comes to power after the next general election it will restore BT to its rightful owner, the British public, and also restore the monopoly. I would find it astonishing if we could persuade a Conservative Opposition to agree a timetable that would allow a Labour

  65
  Government to restore BT to its rightful owner. It is unrealistic to speak in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman in his brief speech.
  A good example in this respect is the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill of 1976, which the then Labour Government managed to get through all its stages without the need for a guillotine. Despite the fact that it was one of the most controversial measures of the 1970s, the Labour Government took the Bill through its 58 Committee sittings. That put it into the record books. Those Labour Ministers had the ingenuity, the guile, the intelligence and the persuasive powers to convince the Committee that it should go through without the need to resort to a guillotine.
  The membership of that Committee was interesting. The Conservative party was represented by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the present Secretary of State for Defence and the present Secretary of State for Employment—none of whom would be regarded as a lightweight in debate. Yet the then Labour Ministers got the Bill through all its stages without a guillotine. That is the condemnation of the Government—that they were represented in Committee on this Bill by Ministers who did not have the guile, the ingenuity, the intelligence or the persuasive powers to get it through.
  Allegations have been made of time-wasting. Had it not been for the Minister of State, the original sittings motion could have been passed in two or two and a half hours. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who is no longer on the Committee, moved an amendment designed to accommodate the Government. It would have provided for open-ended sittings on Tuesday but only morning sittings on Thursday, instead of open-ended sittings on both days. That showed that we were prepared to compromise; nobody can accuse us of trying to obstruct the Minister.
  However, the Minister was determined. I sympathise with him, because he is the poodle of Sir George Jefferson. The thrust behind the Bill comes not from the Leader of the House, not from the Minister of State, not even from the Prime Minister—it comes from Sir George Jefferson. The Minister of State was under instructions from Sir George Jefferson that we were to have open-ended sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If it had been simply a matter of the Minister of State seeing the sense of my right hon. Friend's amendment to the sittings motion, he would have accepted it and we would now have been way beyond clause 3.
  It comes ill from the Leader of the House or Conservative Back Benchers on the Committee to accuse the Labour party of obstructing the Bill. I know that the Leader of the House had a difficult job in introducing the timetable motion and as a result he set a new record in brevity—the shortest speech that I have heard in 12₽ years by a Leader of the House on a timetable motion. Some would say that brevity was an example to be followed. But I understand the reason—the right hon. Gentleman must have felt that, as with a visit to the dentist, the sooner it was over the better.
  The Leader of the House must have been embarrassed by the motion that he had been instructed to move. It allows another 26½ hours in which to debate nearly 90 clauses and six schedules which raise important issues. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) told us that the pension issue was not important. I am sorry that he is no longer here—I mean no criticism of him, because he
  66
  has been with us all afternoon—because he should be reminded that the pre-1969 deficit in the pension fund is a crucial issue for those pensioners who are no longer employed by British Telecom.
  Any hon. Member who believes that pensions are not important, with the pre-1969 deficit still looming large, does not understand the pension scheme. What will happen is that two separate pension schemes will run at the same time in the same company, because the only commitment that the Minister has made is that the pension rights of employees at the point of transfer will be protected. He has given no guarantees, because he cannot, about the pension rights of new employees.
  There are a host of important matters that must be discussed, because there is much new material in the Bill. To hear Conservative Members speaking today, one would have thought that we had been presented with a Bill identical to the one presented in the previous Parliament. Nothing could be further from the truth. The new Bill has a large section on cable. Although the Government complain about the time that it is taking to debate the Bill, they were not too clever at getting it right, because, even after all the time that we spent debating the previous Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, 55 out of the 105 amendments are Government amendments. If the Government cannot get it right, with the full support of the Civil Service and of British Telecom, through its advertising campaign, the Opposition have a duty on behalf of the British people, through our expert contributions to the debates, to ensure that the Government have every opportunity to correct the glaring errors in the Bill.
  During the debate on the Bill there has been a massive advertising campaign, using taxpayers' money, by British Telecom. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott) put down a question about the cost of the campaign, and this afternoon he received a written reply from the Under-Secretary of State saying that the cost was a matter for British Telecom. That is in marked contrast to the Government's attitude to the advertising campaign waged by the British Gas Corporation when the Government threatened to sell off its gas showrooms. The corporation, under the chairmanship of sir Denis Rooke, tried to persuade the public, using State money, that it would be wrong to sell off showrooms. Every Minister, from the Prime Minister sideways, and every Conservative Back-Bench Member, strongly criticised the use of state money to run an advertising campaign. The difference is that that campaign opposed Government policy. It appears that it is wrong to use state money to oppose the Government, but it is right to do so if one supports the Government's intentions.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said that the purpose of selling British Telecom is not to make it more efficient, because it is one of the most efficient telecommunications companies, private or public, in the world. We have drawn comparisons with AT and T in America and with many privately owned telecommunications companies in other countries, and the comparisons all favour British Telecom.
  If it is not in the interests of efficiency; it is in the interests, as my hon. Friends and I maintain, of providing more financial resources for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I caution Conservative Members. I accept that

  67
  in Committee we have been singularly unsuccessful in persuading Conservative Members of the folly of the Government's action. However, if those Members think that by privatising BT and selling off £5 billion worth of its assets the Government will be in a position to reduce taxation, they should look at the Chancellor's autumn statement of last Thursday. Even better, they should look at the companies that have already been sold to reduce taxation. Amersham International was sold on the basis that it would reduce income tax. What happened? It was sold, and taxation is higher. The National Freight Corporation was sold on the basis that it would help the Government to reduce taxation. What happened? It was sold, and taxation is still higher. Britoil was formed on the basis that it would raise revenue to help the Government to reduce taxation. What happened? Taxation is still higher. That is the history of this Government's approach to privatisation.
  If anyone thinks that the contribution from the sale of BT will reduce taxation, he need only look at the record of the past two or three years. The tragedy for the nation is that when the electors reject this Government at the next election, by then the Government will have sold all the nation's assets and taxation will be higher than it has ever been in our nation's history. We shall have no national assets left, and we may be the highest taxed industrial nation in the world.
  We do not apologise for the length of time that we have taken to debate the Bill. We on these Benches have sought to give the Government the benefit of our expert advice and knowledge. The Government have not so far taken it—I emphasise "so far", because there is always joy in the sinner that repenteth, and I hope that the Minister of State is about to become one of those sinners that repenteth—but we still hope that we can persuade them that it is not too late. I am not talking about amending the Bill. It is a bad Bill, and in my view it is not possible to amend it and make it a good Bill.
  We believe that the Bill should be withdrawn. We say that because of the public opinion polls. We have been told time and again by Conservative Members during the past six to nine months that public opinion polls are all-important. Now we have the Gallup poll on whether people are in favour of the privatisation of British Telecom. The same company, Gallup, conducted similar polls, using the same question, on two separate occasions in a period of about a year. The first time it asked the question, the answer showed a substantial majority in favour of selling off BT. A year has passed, and we have had an opportunity to put our case to the nation. Gallup has now asked the same question. The question is the same, but the answers have changed. Now, 46 per cent. of the people say that they oppose the privatisation of BT.
  Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies should look at the breakdown of the results. There are more who oppose privatisation in rural areas, in the south-west of England, and in many of the areas that are represented by Conservative Members. They feel that way because they live in areas where the telephone is not a luxury. Of course it is not a luxury, but in some areas it is more of a necessity than in other areas. There is now widespread fear that the privatisation of BT, combined with the fact that the only motive of those buying it will
  68
  be to make profit, will lead to an ending of the rural services, telephone kiosks and other services on which rural communities depend.
  The House need not take my word for that. One has only to read the Bill. Clause 82 provides that if a local authority decides that a service should be kept in its area it can contribute to the maintenance of that service. That is where the game is given away. We have said throughout that the responsibility for providing those essential services in far-flung and widespread communities will be transferred from the Government. They will not take the financial responsibility for maintaining their services. The responsibility for providing and maintaining the services will be transferred to the already hard-hit local authorities. That is what clause 82 provides.
  We have 26 ½ short hours left to debate this important Bill. It is a disgraceful allocation of time. I stick to my principal point—I do not apologise for doing so, although some hon. Members may think it strange—that 126½ hours or 226½ hours would not make the Bill acceptable to the Labour party and the Labour Opposition. I give notice that at the first opportunity a new Labour Government will restore BT to its rightful owner, the people of this country, and make absolutely certain that the hyper-efficient industry that has been built up in public ownership will continue.
  I had hoped that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who made his maiden speech, would return to the Chamber. Unfortunately, my hopes have not been realised. It would be unfair of me not to congratulate him on his speech. I was particularly glad that he referred to Ray Fletcher. He was a Member with whom one looked forward to having dinner or a cup of tea in the Tea Room. He was always interesting, and such a gentleman. May I say, in the absence of the hon. Member for Amber Valley, that if he confines his speeches to guillotine motions he will be the most prolific speaker in the House of Commons. There is a great deal of legislation going through the House at present that will be opposed root and branch by the Labour Opposition. I have a feeling that the Leader of the House will be accused of tedious repetition if he comes back time and again to introduce guillotine motions. This guillotine motion is a scandal and a disgrace to democracy, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it in the Lobby tonight.
  6.57 pm
  The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): We have had an interesting debate. The House has not simply referred to the guillotine motion, but at times touched in considerable detail on the principles of the Bill.
  I echo the con gratulations of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on his speech. My hon. Friend spoke warmly of his constituency and of Ray Fletcher, an amusing and civilised Member who was well liked on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend is an expert on high technology. He has written a book, and, I believe, runs a magazine about it. No doubt, he must be writing for it now. Certainly he stood up for British technology. My hon. Friend will be able to read in Hansard tomorrow the encomium that I paid him.
  The history of the Bill is remarkable. It was introduced just 12 months ago. I shall come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East about it now being a slightly different Bill. In the last Parliament it was debated

  69
  for 161 hours in Committee. In this Parliament so far it has been debated for 79 hours plus a further proposed 32, making a total in Committee of 272 hours, plus two Second Readings and two Report stages of two days each, plus two guillotines, making in all about 310 hours of parliamentary debate, all within 12 months. Perhaps that deserves to be in the "Guinness Book of Records."
  If it had been taken on the Floor of the House for eight hours a day—our usual sitting time for debates—it would have taken 40 sitting days, or 10 weeks, Monday to Thursday—10 solid weeks of debate on one issue. What a parliamentary feast. The diet would have been so rich and heavy that the usual sounds that accompany indigestion would have been heard. The House simply would not have taken it. That is the size and scale of the filibuster to which we have been subjected.
  We have sought to make progress on the Bill. We moved the closure 14 times. We wanted to speed the debate. Last Thursday the hon. Member for Falkirk, East chided us for rushing through it and used the memorable phrase, "We are going too fast." His right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that the Government were to blame for the guillotine, but it is clear that the blame lies with Opposition Members because of the tactics that they have deployed. No Government could possibly have gone on withstanding such a filibuster.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East suggested that later I may be able to accept some amendments. He spoke of the sinner that repenteth, but in moving the guillotine motion I am like King Lear—more sinned against than sinning. It is not because we want to move the guillotine motion but because we must. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) said, we have been subjected to a farrago of irrelevancies.
  The sartorial habits of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) took up a large part of the debate in Committee, as did those of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There were several long debates on the English civil war during the proceedings. I cannot accuse the Opposition of deception in their use of tactics, because it was clear from the start that they were fundamentally opposed to the Bill. Indeed. the hon. Member for Falkirk, East pointed out a few moments ago that if we debated the matter for 126 or even 226 hours, we would not make progress. So much for tempting me to agree with his suggestion that we should sit on Tuesday and only on Thursday morning. The last part contradicted the first part of his speech.
  It is clear that Labour Members oppose the Bill because they believe in state ownership. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made that clear, and he has been determining the tactics of the Opposition on the Bill. Indeed, on Second Reading he advised members of the Standing Committee
  "to kiss their wives goodbye now. As they lie in their beds unloved during the autumn, the winter and the spring … "—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 54.]
  That was the regime that the Savonarola of Committee Room 11 imposed on us. But whereas on 25 October he told the Committee that the Opposition did not want to make any progress on the Bill, later he said that he would not have the Committee meet at all. Clearly, Mrs. Golding had been having a word with him. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman because his speeches have been remarkable parliamentary performances by any standards. In the last
  70
  Parliament he spoke for 11 hours on one occasion and in this Parliament he spoke once for four hours, twice for three hours and made a couple of interjections of an hour each.
  What endeared the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friends on the Committee were the occasions when he told us of the homely, sensible advice that he used to receive from his mother when he was a child. Clearly Mrs. Golding senior was a kind, warm, sensible woman—she has a lot to answer for—and, while she was dandling the infant John upon her knee, perhaps she recited to him Kipling's poem "If', which ends:
  "If you can fill the unforgiving minute
  With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
  Yours is the earth and everything that's in it.
  And—which is more—you'll"
  one day be a member of the POEU.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle)—who did not serve on the Committee and whose views on procedure were therefore interesting—and for Swindon, and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) raised the question of the Standing Committee procedures that have been abused. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said in an intervention, the attendance of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye was not regular. Of the 37 votes, he attended only 14. Yet he comes forward now with proposals to reform the whole procedures of the House of Commons. With such a casual and dilettante approach, he will have to learn that he cannot reform this House by dropping in occasionally.
  The question nevertheless has been raised about the best way of handling a long, complicated and controversial Bill in Committee. Having had to handle the Bill in two Parliaments, I cannot believe that we have struck on the best way. The job of the House is to scrutinise the legislative proposals of the Executive, to subject them to detailed probing and to represent the views of outside parties through the briefs that one receives as a member of the Standing Committee and the pressure groups as they build up outside on all sides of an issue. That is the proper way to do it.
  What has been happening in Committee Room 11 has had little to do with that. After 80 hours of debate, we are on page 3 of a 188-page Bill. Schedule 2, for example, which updates the 100-year-old legislation on way leaves, has hardly been debated—either in the last Parliament or, except briefly, in this—because it is not considered to be political. It is important, however, because it will have an effect on how cables and systems are developed at a local level—on controls, digging up the roads and matters of that sort.
  It is time that the House, through the Procedure Committee, looked at the whole question of Standing Committee procedure and the central question of whether major Bills should be timetabled from the outset—and I have not advocated that simply when I have been on the Treasury Front Bench.
  The Opposition tend to say, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East said, "Delay is our principal weapon," but is that really so?
  Mr. Ewing: I said that delay was one weapon, especially in the face of obstinate Ministers.
  Mr. Baker: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—that it is an important weapon, perhaps almost the

  71
  principal weapon—but my experience is that delay by itself does not cause Governments to change their proposals. It is a combination of pressure groups outside, debates in the House and the views and opinions of hon. Members—speaking here and making their views known to the Administration—that has an effect. To say that delay is the only weapon is to devalue this debating Chamber, to devalue debate and to dismiss the power of rational argument.
  A complicated procedural point has been raised. I hope that, when it is established, the Procedure Committee will look into it. I refer to a loophole that was discovered by the hon. Member for Newcastle under-Lyme, who said:
  "I discovered a loophole in the procedure and was able to exploit it. I do not want to defend the loophole. I seriously believe that it should be removed."—[Official Report. Standing Committee A, 15 November 1983; c. 604.]
  The loophole is that when an amendment is called an hon. Member can speak to it without actually moving it. That meant that the hon. Gentleman's speech could not be interrupted, and until he gave way nobody could move the Adjournment of the Committee. Now he realises that the loophole should not be defended. The Chairman in Committee that day, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), gave a ruling of some significance when she closed the loophole. That matter must be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. The Chairman ruled:
  "The Chair may deem the hon. Member to have, moved the amendment and proceed after the hon. Member has sat down to propose the question on it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 November 1983; c. 605.]
  That clearly requires further examination by the Select Committee on Procedure.
  Mr. Golding: Standing Orders provide for the Chairman's Panel to report this matter to the House. The Minister has taken note of the fact that I objected to it being dealt with without reference to the House.
  Mr. Baker: That is the classic poacher turned gamekeeper. I hope that either the Chairman's Panel or the Select Committee on Procedure will look at the matter. I cannot believe that that was intended by those who drew up the rules for Standing Committee procedure.
  The Opposition's campaign against the Bill has been three-pronged. It has been a co-ordinated campaign, As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, they tried to stop Mercury, they threatened BT's own customers by industrial action and they have delayed proceedings in Parliament. Any general should know that fighting on three fronts is a certain recipe for defeat. The collective leadership of the POEU is seen to be failing in all three ways. Their action against Mercury has been stopped by the courts. As a full trial is due next year, I shall make no comment on that as the matter is sub judice. I hope that the POEU action, which is aimed at BT's customers, will stop. This is a self-inflicted wound. It is out of character for the POEU, and I believe that there is much unease among the union membership about the campaign.
  I believe the parliamentary delay to be profoundly misconceived. I have been keen during the proceedings in Committee to remind Members of the great strength that we have built into the two Bills to protect the telephone customer after privatisation. For the first time on the
  72
  statute book and reinforced by the licence, we give specific obligations—for example, for rural and remote services after privatisation. That is the first time that that has ever appeared in statute law. At the moment, BT does not have a statutory obligation to provide those services. We have given statutory protection to the network of telephone kiosks under clause 3 of the Bill and under condition 11 of the licence. We have given statutory protection to the continuation of free 999 services. We have given extra protection to the disabled. There has been concern, for example, that blind telephone operators would not be able to be employed as a result of the new electronic exchanges. We have provided a clause in the Bill to allow the Government to give grants for the adaptation of certain exchanges so that the employment of blind telephonists is continued. In addition, we have introduced proposals in the measure to ensure that telephone kiosks have special telephones for the hard of hearing. We have established a committee to work with groups of the disabled to try to find better ways to ensure that their interests are protected after privatisation.
  This Bill ends the monopoly of British Telecom. It ends its monopoly on equipment, on services and on maintenance. It ends British Telecom's right to be the sole determinant of who should interconnect to its system. It ends BT's right to license its competitors and thereby know all their plans. It ends the exclusive privilege of the Post Office Engineering Union to be the only workers allowed to provide telephone services in our country.
  We have a clear mandate to introduce the Bill and to carry it through. The Committee will report by I December. There will be two days on Report. I hope that we will have Third Reading before Christmas and that it will then pass to the House of Lords. We hope that the Bill will receive Royal Assent by late spring or early summer. The Director General of Oftel will assume his responsibility on the appointed day, which will be some weeks after Royal Assent. Then shares in BT will be offered for sale in the autumn of next year——
  And it being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. Speaker put the Question necessary to disposal of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46 (Allocation of time to Bills).
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 200.

  Division No. 73]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alexander, Richard

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Arnold, Tom

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ashby, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bright, Graham

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Brinton, Tim

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Baldry, Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Browne, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Budgen, Nick

  Benyon, William

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Burt, Alistair

  Best, Keith

  Butcher, John

  73

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, J.

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heddle, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Henderson, Barry

  Chope, Christopher

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hirst, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon

  Hooson, Tom

  Cope, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howard, Michael

  Couchman, James

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

  Critchley, Julian

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Crouch, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Dicks, T.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dover, Denshore

  Irving, Charles

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Jackson, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Evennett, David

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Key, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Favell, Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Knowles, Michael

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Knox, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Norman

  Forth, Eric

  Lang, Ian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Latham, Michael

  Fox, Marcus

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Franks, Cecil

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fry, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Gale, Roger

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lightbown, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Lilley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lord, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Luce, Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gow, Ian

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Greenway, Harry

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Maclean, David John.

  Grist, Ian

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Ground, Patrick

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Grylls, Michael

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

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Madel, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Major, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maples, John

  Hannam, John

  Marland, Paul

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Marlow, Antony

  Harris, David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Harvey, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maude, Francis

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mellor, David

  74

  Merchant, Piers

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Silvester, Fred

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Moore, John

  Speed, Keith

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Speller, Tony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Spence, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Spencer, D.

  Mudd, David

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Squire, Robin

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Needham, Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stokes, John

  Norris, Steven

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Tapsell, Peter

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Osborn, Sir John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Parris, Matthew

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tracey, Richard

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Trippier, David

  Pollock, Alexander

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, Barry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Powley, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Waddington, David

  Price, Sir David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walden, George

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Raffan, Keith

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walters, Dennis

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Renton, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Watson, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Watts, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Whitfield, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rost, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Beggs, Roy

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Beith, A. J.

  Alton, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashton, Joe

  Blair, Anthony

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Barnett, Guy

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

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  75

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Leighton, Ronald

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Campbell, Ian

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cartwright, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Loyden, Edward

  Clay, Robert

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McCusker, Harold

  Cohen, Harry

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Coleman, Donald

  McGuire, Michael

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D,

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Corbett, Robin

  McTaggart, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Madden, Max

  Cowans, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Craigen, J. M.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Crowther, Stan

  Martin, Michael

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dixon, Donald

  Michie, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dormand, Jack

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Douglas, Dick

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Nellist, David

  Eadie, Alex

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Brien, William

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Park, George

  Ewing, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Pendry, Tom

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pike, Peter

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Fisher, Mark

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Flannery, Martin

  Prescott, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Radice, Giles

  Forrester, John

  Randall, Stuart

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Redmond, M.

  Foster, Derek

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Freud, Clement

  Robertson, George

  Garrett, W. E.

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Rogers, Allan

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Rooker, J. W.

  Golding, John

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ryman, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Haynes, Frank

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Home Robertson, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Snape, Peter

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Strang, Gavin

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Straw, Jack

  John, Brynmor

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  76

  Tinn, James

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Winnick, David

  Wainwright, R.

  Woodall, Alec

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Welsh, Michael

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Austin Mitchell

  White, James

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Committee
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st December 1983.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  (3) Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands

  77
  over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands
  78
  over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved m the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  'the Bill' means the Telecommunications Bill;
  'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  `Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Opposition Day
[3rd ALLOTTED DAY] [SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  Co-operation and Economic Development in the Commonwealth
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Stuart Holland: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the failure of Her Majesty's Government to promote political co-operation and economic development in the Commonwealth, deplores its international policies which delay economic recovery in both the United Kingdom and other European and world economies, and calls on it to initiate a major project for international economic recovery which would benefit the United Kingdom, the countries of the Commonwealth and the world.
  The 1980s are supposed to be the development decade. In reality, they are already a decade of crisis and threaten economic catastrophe to developed and less developed countries alike. There are more than 500 million people in the less developed countries without a regular job or regular income, which means that in those countries there are as many unemployed as the developed countries have total inhabitants. Half of the world's population has only one tenth of the world's gross domestic product per head. Countries such as Tanzania, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka are among the least developed in the world in terms of gross domestic product per head.
  The absolute poverty now affecting the south of the global economy is a condition of life of malnutrition, illiteracy and disease beneath any reasonable definition of human decency. This is the formal definition of absolute poverty given by the World Bank. It is a condition in which some 800 million people are currently living out their lives. According to UNICEF, some 40,000 children die each day because they cannot get enough food, safe water and medical care. In more than 30 countries throughout the world, including Commonwealth countries, the average life expectancy is under 50 years. Diseases such as measles and diarrhoea, so easy to treat in the north, have devastating effects in countries where the infrastructure of care is weak, and the cruellest attacks are reserved for the young. In many parts of the world, only a small percentage of the population has access to clean water. For hundreds of millions of people, the future holds nothing but misery and despair.
  World Bank president Clausen has warned that
  "the economic distress of the poorest nations is a time bomb ticking away. We delay defusing it at our peril."
  He was referring inter alia to the problem of Third world debt. That is a symptom rather than a cause of the underlying crisis in accumulation, income and trade in the global economy, but it has now assumed such gigantic proportions that it has become the primary short-term obstacle to global recovery.
  For a decade after the first oil price increases, the level of activity in the world economy depended heavily on the ability of the international banking system to circulate funds from surplus to deficit countries. Essentially, the private banking system was performing a Keynesian function in recycling global demand from OPEC, through Europe and the United States, to Third world countries. During most of the 10 years from the first OPEC increases in September 1973, the private banking system was thus
  80
  offsetting the monetarist policies pursued in varying degrees by leading Governments who thought that OPEC had thrown an oil slick on the global economic prospects, and instead of adjusting the steering or easing the pace, had slammed the brakes on the OECD economies.
  By the end of last year, however, global debt lent by the private banks amounted to more than $1,000 billion, of which the less developed countries owed nearly one third. That is apart from official lending and short-term credits, which raised the less developed countries' total debt to nearly $500 billion. That is still an underestimate, however, as the Bank for International Settlements figures exclude loans from Arab banks, and the World Bank figures exclude most military credits, which bring the Third world debt to about $660 billion.
  At the end of last year, a tremor shook the private banks when three major countries effectively defaulted on their debts—Mexico in August, Argentina in September and Brazil in December. What went wrong?
  First, the global economic recovery expected by many Governments, including the British Government, did not take place. The global recession was shifting into slump due to the monetarist policies pursued in the developed countries of the North. Balance of payments problems caused key countries to cut back their development programmes. For instance, in 1981 Nigeria imported $700 million worth of goods, mainly manufactures. In 1982, that was cut back to less than $50 million. Other key OPEC countries, instead of being able to perform their initial recycling operations, left the league of big spenders. Iran did so due to the war with Iraq and the Ayatollah's regime. Argentina cut back on spending in an economic crisis aggravated by the Falklands war. Brazil was badly hit by the recession as some 60 per cent. of its exports and 70 per cent. of its manufactures went to developing countries most hit by the new phase of the economic crisis.
  A second major factor, rather closer to the House, is the scale and variation of interest rates on private bank lending to Third world countries, including Commonwealth countries. The North has a key responsibility for this. High interest rates in Britain and the United States, both pursuing monetarist policies, affected the international banking system and LIBOR—the London inter-bank offer rate. The three-month Eurodollar rate was 5 per cent. at the end of 1976 and nearly 20 per cent. in March 1980. Average rates rose from less than 8 per cent. in 1976 to nearly 15 per cent. in 1981. Those are variations in the cost of borrowing which less developed and Commonwealth countries can scarcely absorb with ease.
  Monetarist deflation of global demand and trade, associated with high interest rates in the North, have crippled the development prospects of many countries of the South. Morgan Guaranty recently estimated that the debt service ratio for Chile, Brazil and Mexico ranged from 115 per cent. to 130 per cent. and for Argentina it was 180 per cent. An economy such as Brazil's, which is crucial for the trade of the South and other Commonwealth countries and not just for Latin America, now needs more than its total export earnings to service its debt.
  In the Commonwealth itself, Zambia owes $4 billion, India $20 billion and Nigeria $13 billion. In south-east Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and South Korea—the so-called miracle economies of yesteryear—now owe $22 billion, $21 billion and $40 billion, respectively, in the international community.

  81
  It is not just a Latin American, Commonwealth or south-east Asian crisis. It is a crisis for the North, for the United States and for the European economies. In May this year, loans to Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela alone from half a dozen major banks in the United States, including City-corp, Bank of America and Chase Manhattan, amounted to between 140 per cent. and 180 per cent. of those banks' own equity capital. Lloyd's Bank is arguably at risk if Latin American countries default. It has been estimated that there is a one in 10 chance that the future of Lloyd's as an independent operation could be threatened. Not least by calling in loans, the private banks are worsening the debt syndrome by threatening further default. The Bank for International Settlements recently reported that with only a few exceptions the private banks are now draining resources out of the South rather than transferring them to it. It is hardly surprising that the new president of Argentina, Raul Alfonsin, has argued, "We will repay our debts if you buy our exports." Without a recovery in the North, without even the beginnings of the process of recovery in the North, without a recovery in a key global institution such as the Commonwealth, there is very little prospect of recovery for the South.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Is the hon. Gentleman committing the Labour party to doing as President Alfonsin wishes and easing the access to Western countries, especially this country, for Argentine goods? Does that reflect the beginning of a shift by the Labour party away from the policy of import control that it supported at the time of the general election?
  Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman should address his comments to the Prime Minister. It is clear why the Government have been so unwilling to exert economic pressure on Argentina, even during the Falklands crisis. If they had done so and Argentina had defaulted, British banking interests would have been threatened.
  What are the alternatives? What alternative strategies are recommended by the Labour party and by members of the Commonwealth conference which begins in New Delhi today? Is there a global international alternative? Clearly, there are several. First, there are the recommendations of the Brandt "North-South" report and its successor, "Common Crisis". Another is the package of recommendations made by Commonwealth Finance Ministers at their annual meeting in Port of Spain, Trinidad, two months ago. We understand that those proposals are also on the table for the Commonwealth conference in New Delhi.
  There are key recommendations shared by the Brandt report and the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' package. They include preparations for a new international financial conference to discuss reform, increased funds for the IMF and the World Bank, easier conditions attached to assistance by the IMF, some amalgamation of the functions of the IMF and the World Bank, and an increased voice for Third world countries in the running of international financial institutions. Britain, however, according to reports of reactions to the conference in Port of Spain, believes that present tight conditions governing IMF assistance should be maintained and argues that there is no realistic possibility of increasing the flow of aid to the underdeveloped world.
  The Financial Times of 22 September reported:
  "A sharp split emerged yesterday between Britain and most of the members of the Commonwealth after Mr. Nigel Lawson,
  82
  the Chancellor, made it clear he could not accept most of the proposals for a new 'Bretton Woods' reform of the world's financial system."
  If the Government will not accept those proposals and the ones that are now being tabled at the Commonwealth conference, what will they accept? At Cancun the Government, who represent the senior member of the Commonwealth, showed no readiness to bring pressure to bear on the American Administration to realise the recommendations of the Brandt report. At the Williamsburg summit, they appeared to have turned down flatly President Mitterrand's call for a new Bretton Woods and a fundamental reform of the IMF. Why? Because essentially the Government do not believe that there is an alternative. At home they do not believe that there is an alternative, and abroad, therefore, they believe that there is no alternative for global development.
  Even on their aid record, the Government's performance has been derisory. Not only have they cut aid as a percentage of gross domestic product, but at 0·44 per cent. we rank with the Japanese at 0·28 per cent. and with the United States at 0·2 per cent. as among the lowest aid contributors of any developed country towards global development. When Conservative Members criticise the performance of the French economy, they should remember that France gives 0·73 per cent. of GDP in aid. Scandinavian countries, such as Norway and Sweden, provide 0·8 per cent. of GDP or more.
  The links between the alternatives for the South and the alternatives for the North have rightly been stressed by the authors of the Brandt report and its successor. It is time that that argument registered with the Government. In the North, against a post-war quarter century of full employment, there are now 15 million people unemployed and 35 million people are out of work in the OECD countries. Because the brakes were slammed on after the OPEC oil price increases, real incomes have fallen and total income and economic welfare are as much as one quarter lower than they would have been if expansion had been maintained in the North.
  The unemployment figures are only the official ones. We all know that behind them are millions more people who do not register as unemployed because they are not entitled to benefit. Millions of people suffer from reduced income because there is now only one person in the family working full time. Others who have been made unemployed from Britain's industries have no foreseeable prospect of employment.
  The Government argue that there is no alternative here, or presumably abroad, because we have to give priority to inflation. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the latter. In fact, there is no problem of hyper-inflation in western European economies. Most have rates of inflation of less than 10 per cent. As to the priority of reducing inflation, one might argue that, just as we should not congratulate a doctor on reducing a patient's temperature if the result was rigor mortis, so the Government should give priority to recovery rather than the reduction of inflation if they are to fulfil their responsibility to the British people and those who live in the Third world.
  There is no risk of hyper-inflation in the world's leading economies. Gripped by monetarism, the Government appear to believe that if the world cuts its budget deficits

  83
  it will, by some miracle of the invisible hand, recover tomorrow from today's crisis. They have no recovery programme and appear to be offering none in New Delhi.
  The world is now gripped by militarism as well as monetarism. There is an arms race in the West, which even the CIA now recognises is unnecessary, based on allegedly false estimates of Warsaw pact and Soviet Union arms spending. The Commonwealth is calling for co-operation, development and disarmament.
  It is interesting that tonight's reports show that Mahrajkrishna Rasgotra, speaking for India before the opening of the summit, chose to highlight an appeal to the Soviet Union and the United States to stop the nuclear arms race. The Commonwealth Secretary General, Shridath Ramphal, urged the 48 nations, which are now meeting in New Delhi, to plead for an end to obscene military spending. Meanwhile, what will the Government do about their contribution or their European contribution to any form of recovery programme? They fail to recognise that, if the North recovers and lends on a proper public long-term basis to the South, the North and the South will benefit. That public lending is increasingly necessary for precisely the reasons that I have stressed. Private banks can no longer continue the recycling operation. Indeed, they are now draining resources out of the South.
  It has been estimated for OECD countries—Britain has a major responsibility here as the senior member of the Commonwealth—that if the OECD were to achieve the aid target of 0·7 per cent. of GDP and accepting that some OECD countries have already exceeded that target, the result would be the creation of nearly 2 million jobs in OECD countries. Moreover, if the target were achieved, the public budget balance would still be positive at 0·12 per cent. The balance of goods and services on trade would deteriorate by only 0·02 per cent. Recovery is mutual. That is the Brandt reports' message. Many Conservative Members are open to that point.
  What about the recovery in Europe? Can anything be done? Are we to consider only the Commonwealth conference, or will the Government respond to other proposals for recovery which might be made at the Athens summit? What will the United States do in the world economy? Is there really a recovery there? What is the nature of the so-called pick-up in the United Kingdom economy?
  Despite present evidence that the United States is recovering at a GDP rate of about 5 per cent. a year, the balance of payments deficit that is emerging is colossal. The OECD forecasts that the United States will have a deficit of $35 billion to $45 billion within six months.
  At the beginning of his statement last week, the Chancellor stressed the importance of any recovery being made by Europe as well as the United States. That is important. If we are to avoid mass unemployment in western Europe as well as in the South, western European countries should be spending about $100 billion a year for 10 years to cope with the problem of unemployment. That might appear to be a large sum, but it is less than one tenth per year of the outstanding debts of North and South countries which cannot feasibly be repaid if there is not a recovery.
  However, if there were a European recovery of that magnitude, it would add between 3 per cent. and 5 per
  84
  cent. to the visible exports of the United States and the South because Europe is such a major trading partner. If that were to be fulfilled, despite the astronomic level of the debt crisis now facing North and South, we could, within five years—not 10 or 15 years—put the Third world debt crisis behind us. Will the Government welcome any such initiatives or will they continue their opposition to arguments for recovery?
  The millions who watched television this week will have noted that the Queen was visibly moved by the poverty and deprivation of India and its children. I am sure that the House will approve and applaud her award of the Order of Merit to Mother Theresa.
  What will the Prime Minister's message be to Mother Theresa? Will it be that the Indian poor are the undeserving poor; that they should take up their beds and walk—if they do so in Calcutta, they will give their places to others who have nowhere to lay their heads—and that there is no alternative for Britain, Europe, the OECD, the North and, therefore, the South?
  What steps will the Government take to follow up the Cancun summit on the Brandt report and to answer President Mitterrand's call at the Williamsburg summit for reform of the IMF? What steps will they take to answer the same call from the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Port of Spain? How will they prepare themselves for recovery arguments at the European summit which will shortly be held in Athens? Will they amortise the debt of the Third world countries for 20 to 25 years—for that is what they need and what is now demanded by many countries—to permit real development into the 21st century? What steps will they take to shift resources from the arms race into global development?
  While I have been speaking, several hundred children have died in the Third world for want of food or inexpensive vaccines. At the same time, £25 million, which could have saved them, nourished their families and promoted employment for their parents, has been spent on the arms race. Those are the figures of the Rockefeller foundation. It is a mad, inhumane world in which militarism and monetarism exclude development and disarmament.
  Were this House the Assembly of Chad, Mali, Upper Volta, Tanzania or Bangladesh, we might abandon hope for those we represent, or call on one of the super- powers to stave off famine for a few further moments. But this is not the least developed country in the world. It is one of the richest and still most influential on the globe. It is the only developed country with energy self-sufficiency, financial institutions second to none, any technology within our reach and partners so powerful that they control two thirds of the world's trade and account for most of the world's financial resources.
  If the Government will not take a lead in New Delhi, they should admit that they are leading not a Commonwealth but common poverty, and that this will be a disaster decade rather than a development decade for the world's economy. I commend the motion to the House and call on Conservative Members as well as my hon. Friends who are concerned about North or South to support it in the Lobby.
  7.52 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The subject of the motion is:

  85
  "co-operation and economic development in the Commonwealth"
  The main focus of my remarks will be on the Commonwealth.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), whom we welcome to the Opposition Front Bench, ranged widely. He referred to the Commonwealth from time to time, but it is not unfair to say that his speech covered the whole gamut of development. He gave us a rapid Cook's tour of what he thinks about it. There were moments when I felt that the hon. Gentleman got bored with the Opposition's somewhat complicated motion. Indeed, as I shall show, he appeared to forget altogether parts of what it says.
  I welcome this opportunity as a curtain-raiser to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs are on their way to what I am sure will be a valuable conference. It is generally agreed on all sides that there is something special about these conferences. They are marked by relative informality and unity of language, they are founded on long friendships, and there is a predisposition to quiet exchange over confrontation.
  There have been occasional dramas at conferences, but for the most part they provide a serious, co-operative look at the range of major problems facing a large part of the world.
  The Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, to whom I pay tribute, had no doubt about its modern role when he said recently:
  "It is no longer relevant to discuss whether the Commonwealth has a future. The urgent need is for a debate on where the Commonwealth can lead the rest of the world".
  Many people have said that the Commonwealth is perhaps the most sympathetic forum—or rather, meeting ground—among those available to rich and poor countries for examining the difficulties facing us all, but especially the developing countries. Therefore, it is right to have this debate on the eve of that conference.
  The Labour party has come up with a rather rum motion as a basis for the debate, and I propose to take the various propositions one by one and to illustrate how they distort the real position.
  First the Government are criticised for alleged
  "failure … to promote political co-operation".
  That is a curious charge. We all know that the Commonwealth is a diverse association. It includes some of the largest and most populous countries and some of the smallest. Economically, Commonwealth members range from some of the most highly industrialised countries to some of the poorest and least well-endowed. Politically, the range is almost equally diverse.
  This diversity is one of the Commonwealth's unique features and the source of its strength. It would be unrealistic to expect all its members to adopt a united approach on all issues. The Commonwealth operates by consensus, not by vote, and it can therefore act effectively only when all its members agree to act together. Therefore, it would not be sensible to expect unanimity on all issues.
  But there have been positive, practical achievements in political co-operation, which we have fully backed. It will be remembered that the Commonwealth played an important part in the Rhodesia settlement. Special teams of Commonwealth observers monitored the elections in Zimbabwe and Uganda in 1980. In Uganda a
  86
  Commonwealth military training team with representatives from seven Commonwealth countries is currently doing valuable work in training the Ugandan army.
  In the Falklands, two thirds of the support that we received in combating the totally unacceptable resolution tabled by Argentina in New York earlier this month came from the Commonwealth and, of course, the Commonwealth gave us practical as well as moral support during the crisis.
  At the last Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1981, member states, in the words of the communiqué, were
  "united in calling urgently for a political settlement"
  in Afghanistan. Those are examples of the sort of practical political co-operation that the Commonwealth partnership can achieve and that are referred to in the motion. The United Kingdom Government have played no small part in promoting those.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Before leaving political co-operation between Commonwealth states, will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the possibility of political co-operation on Grenada—a Commonwealth country that is at present occupied by foreign troops? Will he comment on the suggestions that there should be a Commonwealth force?
  Mr. Raison: We must think about that carefully. In helping Grenada to get back on its feet, it is likely that the Commonwealth will be able to play a valuable part. I certainly hope so, but we have now reached the stage at which we must think carefully about the real requirements and then proceed as quickly as possible with whatever programme seems to be appropriate.
  We also give full backing to the Commonwealth Secretariat, not only financially but in every other way. We meet 30 per cent. of the cost of the Secretariat's programmes and as Marlborough House, which we provide free, is its headquarters, we are well placed to co-operate with it here in London.
  The Labour party also seeks to attack our
  "failure … to promote … economic development in the Commonwealth".
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall concentrated on the economic argument. He did not begin to make out his case. There are many ways in which we support such development in the Commonwealth, not least through the aid programme.
  Our 1980 aid policy statement made it perfectly clear that the Commonwealth would have a special place in the allocation of our aid. In recent years, Commonwealth countries have received about three quarters of our direct bilateral aid, concentrated on the poorest countries of south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
  The quality of our aid is also important. As the recession has taken its effect, we have paid particular attention to the need to provide aid in flexible forms and to act in concert with other donors wherever possible.
  We fully recognise, for instance, the value of our training assistance and the provision of manpower aid. Most of this goes to the Commonwealth, where our common links mean that British consultants, experts and volunteers can be particularly effective. We have also responded to a series of requirements by Commonwealth countries and some other poor countries for aid, not just for new capital projects, but for maintenance and recurrent imports. Where possible we target such aid to specific

  87
  sectors—for example the private sector in Jamaica; the agricultural and transport sectors in Kenya and specified public corporations in Bangladesh.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister criticised me for giving a Cook's tour of the global crisis, but he is giving a Cook's tour of the ODA report. The Opposition are well aware of the spending programmes on aid. Is the Minister aware that the total United Kingdom aid programme is about, one-thousandth part of the debt crisis of Third world countries? What will the Minister and the Government do about that in New Delhi?
  Mr. Raison: I shall deal with the debt question and the role of the IMF and other bodies in dealing with aid. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, according to the Order Paper, we are discussing co-operation and economic development in the Commonwealth. It seems hardly wrong that I should be discussing that subject.
  Commonwealth countries also benefit from the substantial contributions we make to multilateral programmes. Many are members of the Lomé convention or recipients of non-associates aid and food aid through the European Community. The World Bank group, regional development banks and United Nations agencies and programmes are other sources of support. India, for example, is currently the largest beneficiary, not only of IDA credits but of European Community aid. It is very far from being the Francophone preserve that it is often thought to be.
  We have also played a constructive part in developing the Commonwealth's own effective technical co-operation activities. The high standard of the work of the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation, will be known to many hon. Members. It is interesting that many of the land's experts are recruited from developing countries within the Commonwealth. Over 90 per cent. of its training is undertaken in those countries. Our contribution in the current financial year, amounting to 30 per cent. of the total, is £5·7 million.
  We also provide direct support through the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan. In 1959 several Commonwealth governments agreed to provide in total about 1,000 scholarships and fellowships annually at the postgraduate level. With more than half the awards being made available by Britain in United Kingdom institutions the British Government are now providing almost £7 million a year in support of this scheme. We very much hope that other Commonwealth Governments will follow our lead and increase their contributions.
  Our increased support for the scheme is part of the overall package of measures we announced in February on overseas students. This provides an additional £46 million over the next three years. It serves to replace a haphazard and indiscriminate subsidy with schemes that are more selective and better targeted.
  I have spoken about aid, but of course flows of private capital are in aggregate much more substantial. The place of private direct investment is of particular interest at present. Many developing countries are realising the potential that this has from two points of view—the association of funds with management expertise and the advantage of a form of finance that requires repayment only when it has produced concrete results. By removing
  88
  exchange controls and supporting investment protection schemes, we have done much to ease the flow of private capital to developing countries.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Surely the Minister is aware that 85 per cent. of multinational capital in the form of foreign and private investment goes to only 13 of the more—not least—developed countries. Can he give the figures on the least developed countries and United Kingdom investment in them?
  Mr. Raison: I cannot, off the cuff. I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman have them in due course.
  I now turn to the next element in the Opposition motion, which attacks our international economic policies. I make no bones about the fact that we prefer sound policies to the mirage of a headlong dash for growth. At home, that has meant, among other things, that there has been a paramount need to control public spending. The aid programme has not been exempt. Nevertheless, we are committed to maintaining a substantial aid programme. Contrary to recent speculation—fuelled by some of the development lobby—that we were about to cut the aid programme next year by £50 million, there will, in fact, be an increase.
  The allocation next year will be £1,170 million gross, an increase of almost 5·5 per cent. in cash over the current 1983–84 allocation of £1,110 million. This year's allocation was in turn 8 per cent. higher in cash than that for last year. We shall continue to place special emphasis on the needs of the Commonwealth in allocating these resources.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: My right hon. Friend's figures do not correspond with mine. Is my right hon. Friend saying that there will be a 5 per cent. increase in the figures announced for 1982? Will there then be a further increase? If so, I wish to congratulate him now.
  Mr. Raison: The 5·5 per cent. increase is a cash increase on the 1983–84 allocation of £1,110 million. I hope that makes the position clear to my hon. Friend. That is the outcome of last week's statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about public expenditure.
  Over the past year we have heard many prophecies of doom about the effect the debt crises in many countries will have on the international financial system. Commonwealth countries are not among the debtors whose problems are largest, but I will take this opportunity to say that we believe that the case-by-case approach adopted to debt problems has served debtors, creditors and the system as a whole well. We do not think that it would be right to abandon this approach. Nor do we believe that Governments should adopt a wider role. The case-by-case approach has been typified by unprecedented co-operation between the creditors, both official and private. The IMF has been invaluable in co-ordinating the approach in many of the most severe cases.
  The United Kingdom has played a positive role in resolving major issues before the IMF. In February, my right hon. and learned Friend, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, as chairman of the IMF interim committee, secured agreement to increase the fund's quotas by 47·5 per cent. to SDR90 billion. At the IMF-IBRD annual

  89
  meetings in September our proposal on access to the fund's resources after the eighth general review of quotas was accepted by the interim committee. We have played a considerable part this year.
  We very much welcome the success last week of the United States Administration's efforts to obtain the legislation authorising their quota increase and concurring in their participation in the general arrangement to borrow.
  IMF lending to developing countries is at record levels. In the year to end September, all drawings on the fund were by developing countries.
  Another important matter discussed at the annual IMF-IBRD meetings was, of course, the proposed seventh replenishment of the International Development Association, the soft loan arm of the World Bank. We very much hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on this by the end of this year so that the replenishment comes into effect no later than next July. Negotiations are still continuing on IDA 7. That is an important matter.
  I wish to say a little more about Lomé. In doing so, I remind the House that if the Labour party had come to power at the June general election, I suppose that we would be on our way out of the convention. I wonder whether the Labour party believes that that would have helped the position of the developing countries.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: As the Minister has provoked Opposition Members, I must say that we would come out of the Lomé convention—because we would give more favourable treatment to countries of the Commonwealth than does Lomé.
  Mr. Raison: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps he will tell us the form that the more favourable treatment will take. We shall be interested to know, as I do not think it was spelt out in the Labour party's manifesto.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: At what level does my right hon. Friend envisage the United Kingdom's contribution to the IDA seventh replenishment?
  Mr. Raison: That depends on the negotiations now taking place. My hon. Friend is extremely well versed in this whole matter, but the level depends on what other parties to the negotiations have to offer. However, I hope that we shall be able to make progress before long.
  The first Lomé convention came into being in 1975 to accommodate the aid and trade relations of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Commonwealth countries within the enlarged Community, including Britain. The second Lomé convention will expire in February 1985. It is worth remembering that the majority of the ACP countries are Commonwealth countries. Last month, I attended the formal opening of the negotiations for a successor convention. I believe that they will be very significant negotiations about an important aspect of the Community's relations with developing countries. It is notable that the representatives of the Commonwealth countries in the ACP play an exceptionally prominent part in such negotiations.
  The aid aspects of the convention are financed from the European development fund. We attach considerable importance to ensuring that the EDF makes an effective contribution to development. We have a duty to ensure that the aid is well used, and that is why we strongly support the Commission's proposal for policy dialogues
  90
  with the ACP to ensure that the aid makes the best contribution to local development policies. We particularly support the proposed emphasis on agriculture and food self-reliance by the ACP countries.
  At least as important, if not perhaps more important than the aid relationship, is the trade relationship. In 1982 trade flows were £9 billion, as against £1·8 billion from all Community bilateral and multilateral aid. The Lomé convention makes particular provision for Commonwealth ACP beef, rum, bananas and sugar. Of course, the arrangements for sugar are of indefinite duration and are not up for renegotiation.
  I believe that the Lomé trade regime is already generous, and some 98 per cent. of Community imports from the ACP are free from tariffs. Nevertheless, it is important to maximise ACP trading opportunities, and we shall look sympathetically at proposals for further liberalisation. Do hon. Members really believe that ACP countries would be better off if we withdrew from that relationship and were unable to speak for our Commonwealth friends?
  The motion next calls for a "major project" for international recovery, which would
  "benefit the United Kingdom, the countries of the Commonwealth and the world."
  Before the debate began I was intrigued to discover what that grandiose project was. We thought that the hon. Member for Vauxhall would magically pull something out of a hat at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in a serious debate. We were all expecting a blinding flash of revelation, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that part of the motion. We were never told what that major project was. I am completely mystified.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: It is notable that every lime the right hon. Gentleman speaks, he is talking about quite derisory sums for the aid programme, and that he has failed to grasp the scale of recovery necessary if there is to be any development at all this decade. We referred to one specific project—"Towards a New Bretton Woods—Challenges to the World Financial and Trading System"—which was endorsed by the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth two months ago in Trinidad, and which is on the table in New Delhi. Will the Government support that? If the Minister has not got a copy of the text from the Overseas Development Administration, we can obtain one for him from the Library. However, will the right hon. Gentleman support that project for recovery, which is essentially similar to Brandt?
  Mr. Raison: It would have been much easier for all concerned if the hon. Gentleman had mentioned in the motion the exact volume to which he was referring. I have, of course, been studying that project.
  I believe that the series of reports—as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are three—that have been produced during the past year by the Commonwealth Secretariat, contains a good deal that is worth thinking about carefully. The suggestion that the hon. Gentleman now apparently has in mind corresponds to the proposal in the report "Towards a New Bretton Woods" for an international monetary conference. I am not sure what such a conference could practically achieve. There are many detailed issues on which international financial institutions are already working, and they do not have too bad a record. An unsuccessful conference could do

  91
  considerable damage to confidence as, indeed, could an unsuccessful round of United Nations global negotiations, even though we do not reject that idea in principle.
  Thus, we have reservations about the proposal for an international monetary conference, but there is much else in the report "Towards a New Bretton Woods" with which we would agree. At the discussion of that report at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Trinidad, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the formation of a Commonwealth group to work with the financial institutions to identify changes that would command general acceptance. That proposal may well be discussed further during the Commonwealth meeting in New Delhi.
  As I have said, the Heads of Government will also have a chance to look at two other Commonwealth reports: one dealing with the threat of protectionism and the other with ways of improving the structure of the dialogue between rich and poor countries. We welcome both those reports. We are committed to maintaining an open trading system and remain firmly committed to the GATT. It is important that as many countries as possible should contribute to halting and reversing protectionism, as identified at the OECD meeting in May, and at Williamsburg.
  The second report makes some excellent suggestions about practical ways of improving negotiating mechanisms in the North-South dialogue. Thus, while the hon. Member for Vauxhall obviously goes for the grandiose, the cause of development and of the Third world would be much better served by looking carefully at the solid and constructive proposals in the report, instead of giving us high-blown flannel.
  The Government believe that the longer-term solution to the present difficulties of the developing countries lies in the resumption of sound, lasting growth among the industrialised countries. That will enable the developing contries to export more, increase their earnings, service their debts and invest in the future. The need to ensure that recovery endures and spreads to the developing countries was recognised by the Williamsburg summit partners and, more recently, in Trinidad.
  The industrialised countries' commitments at the OECD meeting and the Williamsburg summit to halt and then reverse protectionism will in turn help to spread the benefits of recovery to other countries, by ensuring that as recovery proceeds they will be able to benefit from increasing demands in the developed countries. There are signs that recovery is firmly launched in north America and elsewhere. Output rose in all the major industrialised countries in the first half of 1983. Progress on both inflation and growth has been faster than expected earlier this year. In Europe, recovery should resume in 1984 after some faltering in the second half of this year. In the United Kingdom the Government continue to believe that the only prudent course at present is to pursue sound and balanced monetary and fiscal policies that will encourage that recovery.
  The motion before us fails to recognise reality—the reality of the Commonwealth partnership; the reality of the Government's actions and policies to promote political and economic co-operation; and the reality that recovery, difficult though the recession has been, is beginning. Therefore, I call on the House to reject the motion.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I am delighted that this subject is being debated. My one regret is that the debate is taking place at the wrong time. My information is that the Prime Minister took off for Delhi at 2.30 pm today, and is presumably now winging her way across Saudi Arabia. Therefore, she has been unable to hear the speeches tonight. I think that perhaps she should have heard them before going to the Heads of Government meeting, which starts on Wednesday, though she is unlikely to take much notice of what we say tonight, even if she were willing to do so. It is vital that the Prime Minister should take the conference seriously. She should come out with a positive attitude and do something to correct the appalling impression that she made in Melbourne in 1981.
  I am glad that the debate is about the Commonwealth and Britain's relationship with the other 47 members. Alas, such debates are rare. I do not believe that we have had a debate about the Commonwealth since Britain entered the Common Market. Any hon. Member who visits any Commonwealth country will soon realise the degree to which support for the Commonwealth exists. There is much more support for it abroad than there is here. I have just returned from a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nairobi. I was reminded again and again of the enthusiasm for the Commonwealth which exists in other Commonwealth countries and I wish that it was reflected here to a greater extent.
  There has, however, been a greater recognition of the role of the Commonwealth over the past four or five years, which has been reflected on both sides of the House. The Minister mentioned the Commonwealth's role in Zimbabwe. I can go back further than that, because I believe that the Rhodesian settlement and the independence of Zimbabwe were major achievements by the Commonwealth. We could not have done it by ourselves, and we did not do it by ourselves. The Commonwealth is entitled to most of the credit for settling a problem which was almost as serious as that which the French had to face in the late 1950s in Algeria, and the Commonwealth was probably more successful. A major part was played by the Presidents of the front-line states, by the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, and by Michael Manley the former Prime Minister of Jamaica.
  The Commonwealth, as I know from having seen it, has played, and is still playing, a major role in helping Uganda back to democratic government and the rule of law. That country's aspirations—as I know from contacts that I have had—are firmly democratic and Commonwealth-oriented.
  There has already been some discussion between the Front Benches about the three reports that have been published by groups of experts. I wish to say a little about two of them, although all are of enormous value. The first is "North-South Dialogue; Making it Work". I believe that that was a valuable contribution to world negotiations. The document on protectionism, which was published last year, was of great value, and we can learn an enormous amount from the recent publication of the Helleiner committee.

  93
  I believe there is a danger that unless Delhi points the way forward the Commonwealth will begin to run out of steam. I noticed with interest that Mr. Derek Ingram said recently:
  "The trouble with the Commonwealth today is not that it is in any way in danger as far as its survival is concerned (it is not), but that it is in danger of sending its members to sleep."
  The international position is alarming enough. The Commonwealth is uniquely qualified to play a significant role, but this week it begins a Heads of Government meeting in Delhi still needing to work out where it is going in the international order of things.
  I wish to illustrate that in a number of ways. The first is Grenada, which promises to be a major issue at Delhi. I believe that part of the reason behind the crisis of the past month or two was a failure by the Commonwealth and the Government. What political objective did the Government believe they were serving when they cut our aid to Grenada by three quarters? Was it done because of political prejudice? I believe that the Government must bear a heavy responsibility for their cold-shoulder treatment of the Bishop Government. The reason must have been political, because, according to the World Bank, Grenada had an excellent developmental record.
  The Commonwealth also has a responsibility for the crisis. About half the Commonwealth countries are small island states, some of them maintaining stability and integrity with difficulty. That fact was recognised at Chogm in 1981. It is ironic, is it not, to recall that at that conference Grenada and St. Lucia proposed the setting up of a Commonwealth Select Committee on small island states and other specially disadvantaged areas? That proposal was rejected. I wonder what the right hon. Lady's position was on that?
  The Commonwealth is the only international organisation of any size with a strong bias in its membership towards small island states. I believe that that gives it a special responsibility in that area. It is no accident that Sir Shridath Ramphal was able to speak with authority on behalf of the Commonwealth during the Falklands crisis and say:
  "In making a firm and unambiguous response to Argentine aggression, Britain is rendering a service to the international community as a whole."
  During the Grenada debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) claimed that grave damage was done to the unity of the Commonwealth by recent events in the east Caribbean. Patrick Keatley in The Guardian today predicts a split in the summit on that issue. I think that that division arises because of the Commonwealth's failure to act in time.
  The other nettle that Delhi must grasp is the desperate plight of the poorest countries, of which the Commonwealth contains a high proportion. The three reports to which I referred earlier gave practical suggestions about the way forward and guidelines for the Commonwealth and other Governments to follow.
  The Helleiner committee, echoing the words of "Common Crisis", called for the OECD countries to achieve 0·7 per cent. of GNP official aid in the 1980s. The Minister's response to that aim, which we heard this evening, is pathetic, complacent and even self-satisfied. We are told that we are doing all that we can until we have our house in order. The Government have used that excuse for five years and it is wearing a bit thin. Moreover, their performance is not, despite the Minister's fine words, getting any better. It is becoming worse. The Minister
  94
  repeatedly uses cash figures, but it is clear from the public expenditure White Paper that in real terms our aid programme this year is £936 million at 1981–82 prices compared with £1,108 million in 1979—the Labour Government's last year. The Government have no record of which to be proud.
  I can point to one example of gross dereliction of duty by the Government in relation to aid. One of the best multilateral programmes in existence is the UNDP. Its work is supported not just by words by the developing countries. They subscribe 60 per cent. of its budget. The Government slashed the contribution to UNDP by no less than 56 per cent. in real terms. The small increase offered by the Government at the pledging conference the other day, hardly makes up for so massive a cut. That fund is vital to the needs of the poorest countries. Many of them are Commonwealth countries. I believe that the Government have a duty to restore their contribution to the previous level.
  There are two issues which relate directly to the role of the Commonwealth—technical co-operation and finance. I was glad to hear what the Minister said about the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation. I know how highly it is respected by his Department. That fund has been operating for well over 10 years. It sprang from the concept of third party aid. It exists on a relatively small budget of only about £20 million a year. Technical aid for the poorest and most disadvantaged countries is certain to be a continuing need for many years to come.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that we in Britain will be able to continue to provide the bilateral technical assistance personnel of the quality that have been available in the past. The reason is that for about 20 years we have been able to employ ex-colonial specialists—ex-agriculture, forestry and livestock officers—whose training and experience on the ground cannot be matched today. They are now retiring in significant numbers and are not being replaced by people of similar training and experience.
  Last week, on 17 November, a written answer showed that Government plans to reduce the Civil Service will mean a cut in ODA strength from 1,793·5 on the staff to 1,500 in 1988, a fall of 16 per cent. over four years. The first 12·5 per cent. of the fall comes in the first year. Meanwhile, I gather that the Home Office expects the number of its staff to rise from 35,755 to 41,132 over the same four-year period, an increase of 15 per cent. in its manpower. There will be 5,000 extra people. What is the logic behind that? When he is asked why there is a cut, the Chancellor of the Exchequer usually replies, "For more efficient use of manpower." This is happening at a time when the ODA is losing some of its most experienced and valuable staff. I hope that the Minister will answer my question, because I am concerned about the strength of the ODA, which will be affected by the staff cuts which appear to have been approved by the Cabinet.
  For some time I have been critical of the administrative set up of the ODA in the field. I have high regard for the development divisions. They do a first-class job and at present are well staffed, although many of them cover much too wide an area. The ODA needs to administer its own programme overseas and not to be dependent on the diplomatic service to do that for it, although the diplomatic staff whom I have met, who have been charged with that responsibility, generally do a good job.

  95
  Our competence, which is lower than in the past, leads me to ask whether there is a widening role for the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation. Is it not time that the Commonwealth began to think seriously about greatly increasing its budget? Serious thought should be given now to the possibility of setting up under the fund a Commonwealth development service. Such a service could recruit staff from all over the Commonwealth, including Britain. Many ex-volunteers from VSO, its Canadian equivalent, and others, would want to apply, and would come with two years' experience in the field.
  India, Malaysia and other countries have a fund of experience that would be highly relevant to the needs of other tropical countries—experience gained from the green revolution, and knowledge about irrigation, pest control, forest management, co-operative development and appropriate technology. I emphasise that the purpose of the service would be to supply people to work on the ground and gain a knowledge of tropical conditions. However valuable visiting experts may be, they cannot compensate for the lack of experience on the ground that has been available in the past from people with years of experience in tropical countries.
  A terrifying food crisis is developing in the African continent. What is called for is an imaginative and bold initiative of the sort that I have described, because there will be a continuing need in that continent for a high level of technical co-operation and assistance for many years to come.
  I was fascinated by an idea put forward recently in an article by Guy Arnold. There is no time to refer to the recommendations of the Helleiner committee, but Mr. Arnold's suggestions could make a contribution. The article deals with the problem of indebtedness. He proposes a new Commonwealth initiative. I have no doubt that it will not be considered in Delhi this week, but I hope that it will be considered one day. His idea is a Commonwealth development bank. The bank would be funded by capital and interest repayments to Britain and other rich members of the Commonwealth instead of being fed back to the general funds of the donor countries. Debt repayment and forgiveness during 1981–82 amounted to no less than £68 million to Britain alone. I suggest that that money should go to the bank. It would mean that all our aid to Commonwealth countries would be in the shape of grants, and as a consequence the Commonwealth bank would have a regular income, which it could employ in the same way as the World Bank and the IDA do at present.
  It is all very well to rail against Congress for its failure to ratify replenishment of the IDA, but the Commonwealth can, and should, give a practical example, through practical action, because of the urgency of the position facing the world. In "Common Crisis" there are references to the role of groups of like-minded countries and the possibility that they could help to break the logjam in global negotiations. The Commonwealth report "North-South Dialogue; Making it Work", is a valuable contribution to that end.
  There are practical contributions which a group of nations such as the Commonwealth could make to help to heal more sick people, help more starving people and give hope to the poor who at present have little or no hope. The value of that contribution, although it may be relatively
  96
  small in world terms, can go much wider. It can shake the Americans and the Russians out of their present complacency. It can demonstrate what can be done, and should be done, in the alarming position now facing the world.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) because he has done the House a service this evening by focusing attention on the Commonwealth and the forthcoming Commonwealh conference.
  The motion before us is perhaps phrased in an unfortunate way. The House is being asked to judge the Commonwealth conference and Britain's role before that conference has taken place. Rather than shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, we are being asked to shut the door before the horse has been put into the box.
  Both the world economic position and Commonwealth co-operation are on the agenda for the meeting. To charge the Government, as the motion does, with failure
  "to promote political co-operation and economic development in the Commonwealth"
  is to say that Britain is not playing an effective part in the Commonwealth. That I believe to be profoundly untrue.
  I shall not catalogue the contributions that the Commonwealth, with Britain as part of it, has made in recent years. That was ably expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich. Indeed, if I did, I would have to declare my interest in the Commonwealth. Instead, I shall confine my remarks to two or three specific points about the Commonwealth heads of Government meeting which begins on Wednesday.
  My first point relates to the Commonwealth study group report on the Bretton Woods system. The Opposition hinted this evening that that document is a blueprint for the world economy. It is not. Indeed, it is far from that. It is designed to be a contribution to the debate on international funding arrangements. It is an important debate because those arrangements were put into place in 1946—after the last war. The time has come to take a fresh look at them. That does not mean that we need do that along the lines recommended in the report. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister tell the House that the Government are prepared to push positive proposals in New Dehli.
  It is unrealistic to expect the Commonwealth, at the meeting in New Delhi, to produce solutions to world economic problems. It is not, as a forum, designed to do that, and it does not, as a forum, try to do that. One great value of the Commonwealth is the informality of its discussions and the opportunity provided at its meetings for an exchange of views and experience. There is also an input of views into wider international forums. Therein lies the real worth of the discussions that take place at Commonwealth meetings. I believe that we shall find exactly that kind of formula in the communiqué in 10 days time, together with several constructive suggestions about the way forward for the world economy.
  My second point relates to technical co-operation in the Commonwealth. It has been said tonight that Britain contributes 30 per cent. to the Commonwealth Secretariat; but it also contributes 30 per cent. to the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation. To expect the Government to contribute more than 30 per cent. in either

  97
  case is not viable, realistic or sensible. I would argue not just that the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation should continue to play a constructive role in economic development, but that its role could be expanded.
  That is a matter not just for the British Government, but for all participating Commonwealth Governments. One value of that fund is that the contributors are not just the developed countries of the Commonwealth. Indeed, Nigeria is the fourth biggest contributor. Virtually every Commonwealth country contributes to the funds. It is a collective effort that is greatly valued in many countries throughout the Commonwealth. In that respect I was a little disappointed that the ODA report gave only a brief paragraph to the CFTC. As we are a major contributor to the fund, we might sometimes blow the trumpet for it a little more.
  We should sometimes consider more closely our attitude to the Commonwealth and to co-operation within it. The time is coming when it would be legitimate to take a closer look at our role. Over the last 20 years, Britain's attitude to the Commonwealth has been, that in the modern Commonwealth, Britain should not necessarily be seen to lead from the front. If it does, those who may be the Commonwealth's detractors will argue that the Commonwealth is simply a new form of colonialism.
  Now that so many countries—48, we hear, will be present in New Delhi—have acquired independence, it is time to take a fresh look. In recent years, Canada and Australia have used the Commonwealth as a forum for pushing new ideas, and so can we.
  As a reasonably new Member, I am naive enough to believe that our proceedings will be communicated to New Delhi for anyone who is interested. I should therefore like to mention the topical subject of small states, which, in the modern world, are peculiarly vulnerable—not just, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was reported to have said, to hijacking in the same way as an aircraft, but to extreme economic buffeting which they find it extremely difficult to cope with.
  I mean that in the sense not just of economic storms or downturns, but economic negotiation. Small islands must negotiate with big international neighbours and with multinational companies in the private sectors, and sometimes they are desperate for, and short of, advice. We must remember that a wrong economic decision in a small island economy may bring down the Government and even destroy its democratic system. It is a tribute to the modern Commonwealth that so many democracies have survived in small countries. Grenada is the exception rather than the rule.
  Assistance is being given in many areas, including the training of civil servants and the provision of legal draftsmen, but more is required. That is where we can and should extend our focus. Discussions about that were in train at the previous Heads of Government meeting in Melbourne, and recent events have brought the point closer to home. Many of the small island economies are in the Pacific, which is often regarded as being in the sphere of influence more of Australia and New Zealand than of Britain, but I hope that, in assessing the contribution that I know the Government will make to the meeting in New Delhi, the problems of small islands will be taken into account.
  The Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi, which will last for nearly 10 days—one of the longest
  98
  Heads of Government meetings on the international agenda—will provide an opportunity for genuine dialogue and for countries of the North and of the South to meet informally without being hidebound by the necessity for formal votes, as happens in the United Nations or in other international bodies. In the quiet of those meetings, views can be aired in a way that is impossible in larger forums. The representatives of countries will have the opportunity to say things to each other that they could not otherwise say. In my experience of the Commonwealth at work, that has always been an advantage. Zimbabwe proves the case, but there have been many other such examples.
  I hope that the House will reject the motion.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) about the vulnerability of small island states and of the smaller Commonwealth states. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great knowledge about those matters, and he was right to say that the Commonwealth must pay great attention to those problems in the future. Twelve Commonwealth countries are small island states with populations of less than 200,000. Non-island states, such as Belize, are especially vulnerable because of the aggressiveness of some of their more belligerent neighbours. Post-Grenada, it may be worth while Commonwealth leaders considering setting up a rapid deployment Commonwealth force to avoid the problem of super-powers, or of Britain, acting unilaterally in times of tension.
  The Minister talked about the value of the 1979 Commonwealth conference at Lusaka that led to the Rhodesian settlement. The first faltering steps towards an independent Zimbabwe were taken at that conference. Hon. Members paid tribute to that process, but two years previously another significant step was taken at the Commonwealth conference held here in London when the Gleneagles agreement was signed. That agreement demonstrated Britain's concern for the emerging black countries in Africa, and its abhorrence of apartheid. I wish that the Minister had also paid tribute to that conference.
  Two years ago at the last Commonwealth conference the Melbourne declaration gave great fluency to the concern of many people in the North and South about the failure to implement the recommendations of the Brandt report. That point was discussed at some length by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). Liberals and Social Democrats associate themselves with his concern that insufficient will be done this week at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi to break the circle of poverty, referred to in the Melbourne declaration. All of us will have read with some anxiety the article in The Sunday Times yesterday which stated that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary would be on their way to New Delhi with
  "Their briefcases bulging with platitudes, but empty of proposals."
  It went on:
  "The British think this is just as it should be. But it means that, on the crises confronting the Commonwealth—Grenada, Cyprus, world recession—Britain is unlikely to show leadership or imagination".
  The Sunday Times referred to the conference as being "a summit of platitudes". I hope that it will not be that. It is important that the issues before the Commonwealth

  99
  conference should be debated in all seriousness and that Britain demonstrates the leadership that it has traditionally shown in the Commonwealth.
  I come back to the 1981 declaration in Melbourne. There the British Government were a signatory to a declaration which asserted that
  "the gross inequality of wealth and opportunity currently existing in the world, and the unbroken circle of poverty in which the lives of millions in developing countries are confined, are fundamental sources of tension and instability in the world; as a consequence, assert our unanimous conviction that there must be determined and dedicated action at national and international levels to reduce that inequality and to break the circle".
  There are three important reports before the Commonwealth Heads this week, and they could give this country the chance to demonstrate determined and dedicated action and to prove that we really want to break the circle. First, there is the report on protectionism. The Minister expressed a view that I share—as, I suspect, do my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic parties—about trade barriers. We do not believe that the erection of trade barriers will help the developing world. That is why we dissociate ourselves from Labour Members on that matter.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West mentioned the second report that is being discussed in New Delhi this week about the need for a new international monetry conference and the need for a new Bretton Woods agreement. On 27 January of this year, the Secretary General asked:
  "was it not inevitable that sooner or later—for a long time it seemed later—we would have to begin again the rigorous intellectual journey that led in 1944 to Bretton Woods and must lead us now to the threshold of a new era of international economic arrangements and relationships?"
  He went on to say:
  "Bretton Woods was about money and finance and about trade; it was esoteric and to many barely intelligible; but it was, in the end, about people. Indeed, to a greater degree than was attainable at Bretton Woods in the twilight world of those early post-war years, the world's trading and financial system of the 80s and beyond must be responsive to the needs of all the world's people".
  He was saying, just as the hon. Member for Newport, West said a few moments ago, that if one is really serious about the need to break down the protectionism that exists in the world today and that discriminates against so many of the developing countries, there needs to be a new imaginative across-the-board settlement, a new worldwide agreement. But one cannot have a stand against protectionism without the need for a new international monetary conference.
  There will also be a third report discussed in New Delhi on the failure to implement Brandt. In failing to respond to the problems of the Third world, we make a mockery of the Melbourne declaration. In 1982, the real aid that we provided to the Third world was down by about 16 per cent. to £1,024 million. Although I welcome the announcements made tonight of a small increase in our aid, they should be seen in perspective. After all, Britain can find some £10,000 million for our independent nuclear deterrent, Trident, and £6,000 million for our continued presence in the Falklands through to the year 1988, but we can find only about one sixth of that for this year's aid programme to the Third world. I think it was Bacon who
  100
  observed, about 400 years ago, that wealth is rather like manure—the more evenly it is spread the more effective it is.
  That is why we must increase our aid programme. After all, about one in three of the 1,000 million people who live in the Commonwealth are malnourished. Development assistance for agriculture is totally inadequate—we are providing only about three fifths of the requirements. Millions of people are badly educated or illiterate.
  Our response should be measured against the United Nations target that we have never attained, of 0·7 per cent. It should be measured against the 2,200 times more that we manage to find for military purposes each year than on peace-keeping. It should be measured against the 40,000 children who die every day. UNICEF say that progress towards preserving the lives of those children is now slowing down and that for many the quality of life is beginning to fall. It should be measured against the half day's military expenditure that would be enough to wipe out malaria from the world. It should be measured against the 800 million people whom Robert McNamara said were living in an absolute state of starvation, despair and destitution. It should be measured against the 12 million children under five who died of starvation in one year alone. Those chilling statistics are a small measure of the massive challenge facing the Heads of Government in New Delhi this week.
  Perhaps nowhere has our insularity and selfishness been more apparent than in our treatment of overseas students, a form of aid which is mutually beneficial to the recipient and donor. In 1980 the introduction of full cost fees had the effect of driving away thousands of overseas students from this country. At Liverpool university alone of 7,000 students on the campus only 170 are this year from overseas.
  That is an appalling state of affairs, but is it surprising? Consider medical fees. At a time when countries such as India desperately need doctors the cost of a five-year course at a university like Liverpool is £7,000 a year, a total cost of £35,000. That is a prohibitive figure for the average student from a Third world or underdeveloped country. About 45 per cent. of all overseas students in Britain are from the Commonwealth, but enrolments, according to Department of Education and Science figures published last June, are dramatically down. In 1977 there were 22,900 Commonwealth students in the United Kingdom. Today there are only 15,000.
  Numbers of all overseas students are down, from 61,400 in 1981 to 55,000 this year. There has been a 32 per cent. cut in Commonwealth student numbers, yet what an investment those people are as ambassadors for this country's industry, commerce and trade. What great people they are in helping to build up our relations with the developing and Third world countries. Where will the 32 per cent. of students turned away go? Many of them will end up in eastern bloc countries, being educated in their universities and colleges. Is that an investment in peace for the future?
  The Government went some way to meet these arguments earlier this year when they restored £46 million to the programme. That, over three years, will provide an additional 5,000 to 6,000 scholarships and awards, but only half will go to Commonwealth students and it will not be enough to bring us back to the 1977 position. It falls far short of the Overseas Students Trust recommendations. That is why the Government should pledge more money

  101
  to aid student mobility and help set up a Commonwealth higher education programme along the lines of that approved in principle at Melbourne.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the vital subject of overseas students. Does he realise the grave damage that has been done to relations between this country and other Commonwealth countries as a result of Government policy? Apart from the valid points that he has made, devastating damage has been done to our relations with, for example, Malaysia.
  Mr. Alton: Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman speaks with greater knowledge than I on that subject. I endorse what he says. From my experiences in Third world countries and in the middle east, having spoken to business men and academics there, it is clear that in terms of sheer self-interest the decision of the Government to introduce full cost fees makes no sense. On moral grounds and in terms of enlightenment it makes no sense either. I do not know how this country can call itself civilised having been party to such massive reductions in the past four years.
  Apart from our response to those three important papers that are being discussed in New Delhi this week—on protectionism, on the practical steps to try to put flesh on the bones of Brandt and on the need for new monetary arrangements—there are other issues on which Liberals and Social Democrats feel that new Commonwealth initiatives are required. We have recently seen the election of Rauf Alfonsin as the new president of Argentina. He is a member of Liberal International and has had useful discussions on previous occasions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, (Mr. Steel). Argentina's move towards democracy should be welcomed. In that context, I deeply regret that the Prime Minister, when in Washington recently, was reported in an Argentine newspaper called Clarin to have said:
  "The democratisation of Argentina will not change the British position."
  That is an obstinate and stubborn position to take. What will change her position? We cannot continue with the lunacy of fortress Falklands, which will cost £6 billion between now and 1988, for the sake of 500,000 sheep and 1,800 people. There must be a political settlement or the lives of our service men which were given on the beaches of the Falkland Islands will have been worthless. That is why an obstinate policy now is no way to proceed.
  I referred earlier to small island states but I should like also to refer to Hong Kong. If the talks with China fail, to avoid the mad scramble of political refugees that would inevitably follow, there must be Commonwealth arrangements to guarantee resettlement opportunities. That should be put on the agenda of the next Commonwealth conference. It is an important and urgent issue. We should particularly enter into bilateral discussions with Australia at the earliest opportunity to see in what way Australia could assist, through, for instance, changes in its immigration law.
  Liberals would support the Shagari plan which will be discussed this week in New Delhi—a plan for Namibia which would lead to the replacement of Cuban troops in Angola with a mainly African peacekeeping force.
  Instead of lone dissent, the United Kingdom should also support all the other Commonwealth states in their efforts to ratify the law of the sea convention this week.
  102
  Her Majesty's Government should press for greater Commonwealth commitment to minorities within member states. I raise a matter that was mentioned to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the oppression and continuing problems of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. We hope that proper concern will be shown by the Government this week in bilateral discussions on this issue with the Sri Lankan Government.
  We also believe that less emphasis should be placed on the role of the Commonwealth Development Corporation as a corporation tax generator and more emphasis placed on the merits of aid projects, regardless of profitability or consideration of political quotas.
  Finally, in this wide range of serious issues to which we hope the Government will give some attention, we hope that the next Commonwealth conference will initiate a 10-year programme of environmental management in the Commonwealth countries. We commend to the House Richard Sandbrook's paper to the International Institute for Environment and Development on this subject.
  Britain's heritage and its traditions are bound up in the Commonwealth. It is a unique organisation, a collection of heterogeneous states, membership of which enables us to reach out of Europe into the wider world. In 1971 at Singapore, the Heads of Government said:
  "International co-operation is essential to remove the causes of war, promote tolerance, combat injustice and secure development among the peoples of the world."
  In 1983 the need for positive commitment from Her Majesty's Government to achieve those objectives has in no way been abated. Briefcases bulging with platitudes will not be enough to break the circle of poverty or to achieve the international co-operation to which Her Majesty's Government say they subscribe.
  9.2 pm
  Sir John Osborn: I welcome this debate about a challenge that has concerned me for years, and even decades. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred to what is wrong on the global scene. Perhaps the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference is a good time to consider these issues, but I very much hope that Opposition Members will make the success of that conference easier rather than more difficult.
  The first part of the motion
  "condemns the failure of Her Majesty's Government to promote political co-operation and economic development in the Commonwealth".
  The Government's record is good, and by implication the records of previous Governments have not been too bad either. Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with the motion.
  The second part of the motion relates to
  "international economic recovery which would benefit the United Kingdom, the countries of the Commonwealth and the world."
  That is a constructive trend that I shall try to develop.
  Between 1975 and 1979 I was a member of the Development Committee of the European Parliament concerned with Lomé 2. Since 1980, I have been a member of the Economic Affairs and Development Committee of the Council of Europe. Therefore, I have met officials of the OECD and become aware of the Development Assistance Committee. I have met Bradford Morse and had meetings with the World Bank. What the hon. Member for Vauxhall and the hon. Member for

  103
  Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) have spoken about is of concern to all those institutions and their members who must provide the funds that they spend. This is a challenge that I should like to discuss, because from it follows on Brandt 1 and Brandt 2. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) must be commended for his part in this.
  When the Council of Europe representatives went to New York, some 18 months ago, we met Bradford Morse, Mr. Clausen and other members of the World Bank. The discussions that took place then have convinced me of two hard facts that face western Governments. First, if Governments have limited funds, they want to channel them to countries that will not abuse them. The World Bank has Mexico, Brazil and, more recently, Argentina under the microscope. The hon. Member for Vauxhall spoke about a new Bretton Woods conference and mentioned other countries that are in debt.
  I have been asking myself why this has happened. Is it that these and many other countries, whether they be members of the Commonwealth or of the club of 77, do not have the economic, managerial, technological and industrial disciplines to give the Governments of western powers—the developed world—and the OECD countries sufficient confidence to increase the burden on their taxpayers during a world recession? Will it be possible to make progress if these countries take steps, with the help of the developed world, to put their houses in order?
  Secondly, I have been disturbed even further, on talking to representatives from clearing and merchant banks——
  Mr. Stuart Bell rose——
  Sir John Osborn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish and then I shall give way—to member companies of the CBI, the International Chamber of Commerce, the ABCC and companies that have considerable experience in investment in the Commonwealth and colonies. They have said that the political colour of many of the Governments is such that capital, free enterprise and wealth-creating activity is distasteful and only too easily penalised.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that this is somehow the fault of the economic management of those countries. Is he aware that the Commonwealth Secretary General, Mr. Shridath S. Ramphal, in a statement on 21 September 1983 on behalf of the Commonwealth, flatly contradicted that proposition?
  Sir John Osborn: I have worked fairly closely with him in a number of areas. One must work out whether my approach, which comes from others, is realistic. Twenty years ago, I was a joint author of a Conservative publication, "Trade not Aid", when insurance against the political risks of investing abroad was all- important. Since that time, there has been much compulsory purchase—if not confiscation—of assets.
  There have been notable exceptions to this lack of skill in economic management. In 1964, I was at an International Chamber of Commerce conference in Delhi at which I met many business men of the Third world. They worked well with engineers and their counterparts in the North and knew the disciplines that were necessary to
  104
  make irrigation, mining, agricultural developments and industry work. However, over the years, too often those people have told me that these values have had to play second fiddle to political ideals—often the misplaced ideals of Socialism.
  But for Socialism in Great Britain, when Harold Wilson came to office in 1966 for a second time and British Steel was nationalised, companies with which I was associated would have developed a project in India. The site for the factory was in West Bengal, but that area went Communist. Due to political factors in Britain and India, a good, wealth-creating Indian enterprise never went ahead. The people with whom I would have worked had expertise that I respected. The Tata organisation and the Birla family are well known in this sphere.
  Another example is Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. When I first visited that country, it was an old British colony. It is now a thriving industrial area where all these management techniques are known and understood.
  I suspect that in too many newly independent Commonwealth and ex-colonial territories the role of free enterprise and wealth creation is insufficiently understood. The Socialism which, but for a change in 1979, would have brought Britain to its knees, still prevails in some of those territories. Who is to blame for that? It is this country and other European countries, the British Labour party and other Socialist parties. In the London school of economics and some of our universities and colleges politics, economics and philosophy courses and good management and the techniques that go with it have had to take second place to well-meaning but perhaps politically misplaced ideals.
  Since I have been in the Council of Europe, Lomé 3 and the work of the Development and Assistance Committee of the OECD have been discussed. An Icelandic Socialist Member of Parliament, Olaf Grimsson, has produced two excellent reports on "Human needs and the Earth's resources". Not unconnected was the Third world energy conference in Nairobi which also had a Council of Europe input.
  The main issue facing the Third world, and indeed the whole world, is food for a rapidly expanding population and resources of all kinds, mineral and non-mineral. The interdependence of the Third world and the developing world is all too easily forgotten, but this is a vital factor.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on the excellent publication, "British Overseas Aid 1982" and the information contained in it. Irrespective of the total of about £1 billion, expenditure on aid is only 0·37 per cent. of GNP compared with the DAC average of 0·38 per cent. Despite the recession and the failure of our basic industries under Socialist and Conservative Governments, the British aid programme has been good. One might compare it with the Soviet Union's programme—mainly arms, education in Moscow and perhaps, as the Inter-Parliamentary Union has put it, back-door colonialism.
  What is important is value for money. The key to the future is not necessarily the level of public aid—0·7 per cent. is not a vital figure—but the overall momentum of private investment and aid. The critical need is to help the Third world to help itself. Modern financial and managerial disciplines of commerce and industry are essential ingredients. If our recognition of that interdependence brings employment, trade and exports for

  105
  British industry—for me, that means Sheffield, as I hope to elaborate in a later debate tonight—that is to be welcomed.
  The 23 countries of the Council of Europe are organising a conference entitled "North-South—Europe's Role" in Lisbon from 9 to 11 April. The World Council of Churches and the international aid lobby will be invited and welcome. Well-known names such as Willy Brandt, OECD Secretary General Emile van Lennep, Commonwealth Secretary General Sir Shridath Ramphal and Commissioner Pisani who is very much concerned with Lomé 3, will be attending the conference with Members of Parliament from 23 European countries and some other OECD countries.
  I have been in touch with civil engineers, construction engineers, consulting engineers and some multinational companies to learn how they train management and bring Third world people on. I hope that we can take up the challenge of helping the Third world to help itself. It will provide the developed world with opportunities to buy what it wants from the Third world. That will make aid programmes much more palatable to the unemployed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will send representatives from his Department. I also hope that he will consult the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Great Britain and the Commonwealth are an example that the rest of the world envies. But for shortage of time I could have spoken about the Commonwealth Development Corporation and given other illustrations of this. I cannot accept the motion. Nevertheless, there is work to be done and it should be started in Delhi. I hope that the wealth creators, such as the engineers, the technologists, the scientists and those who know what training and modern management are about, will be given a chance to take part in the task and to work with the diplomats and experts who normally have so much to say on the subject.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) had some fairly jaundiced views on Commonwealth development which were rather at odds with the tone of the Minister of State's speech. However, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will strike a strong chord in the heart of the Minister who will wind up the debate. I look forward to hearing the different nuances between the Government's opening and winding-up speeches.
  I take a more gloomy view of Commonwealth development than the Minister. He was not complacent. Indeed, he was a little more optimistic than circumstances warrant. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) mentioned the enormous debt problem, which is not confined to Commonwealth countries. He also mentioned the problem of high interest rates, which are likely to continue for a long time because world interest rates are decided by what happens in the United States. Whether we like it or not, the United States has a favourable surplus on capital account. It does not have a favourable surplus on the ordinary balance of trade, but it is increasingly obvious that what happens on capital account in the United States, or the inward flow of capital, decides the level of interest rates there, and they settle the level of interest rates around the world.
  Poorer countries, especially Commonwealth ones, have problems with their balance of payments. They also have
  106
  a problem of rising populations. We always seem to steer clear of that subject. I am not sure of the Commonwealth Secretariat's attitude to rising population. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), who spoke elegantly in his glowing panegyric of the Secretariat, did not mention it either. The House has many debates on development, but since I came here in 1970 I cannot recall a debate on the Commonwealth since we entered the Common Market on 1 January 1973. We had many debates that concerned the Commonwealth in 1972, when we were discussing whether to enter the Common Market, but since then interest has dwindled. The Government's attitude has been that we must resolve our own problems before we do too much to help the rest of the world or the Commonwealth.
  The circumstances of the last year are such that we cannot continue like this. The North-South dialogue, in which the Commonwealth should play a major part, has failed on almost every occasion in the past three years. At each international meeting or conference, members of the Commonwealth have been divided on North-South lines. Seven Commonwealth countries were represented at Cancun. Before the then Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister went there, some Opposition Members tried to organise a meeting of Commonwealth technocrats, perhaps through the Commonwealth Secretariat, who could have tried to co-ordinate the Commonwealth's view at that important conference. The whole idea failed, as did the Cancun summit.
  We recently had a debate on the second Brandt report It has died a natural death and no one speaks about it any more. The United Nations global negotiations have completely run into the sand. No one asks questions about it anymore, because it has got so bogged down in New York.
  The last GATT conference was almost a complete failure, in spite of the protestations about stopping further protectionism. One of the reasons was that, as a result of the attitude of Britain and other Common Market countries, no real progress was made on international agricultural trade. That gives the lie to what the Minister said about Lomé, because, although that is important, international agricultural trade is even more so to many Commonwealth countries. However, nothing was done about that in GATT.
  There was the failure earlier this year of the UNCTAD conference in Belgrade. Above all—I regret this bitterly because my own party supported it as much as the Conservative party—we have had a much more restrictive multi-fibre arrangement this year than ever before. It has now become a system for regulating Third world textile exports to rich countries rather than a means of opening up the markets of rich countries to Third world textiles. The CAP is a further hindrance, but I shall not go into that.
  Is there now a role for the Commonwealth in the North-South dialogue? Like many hon. Members, I believe that there is, but it simply cannot be one of producing rhetoric.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) quoted from the rhetoric of the Melbourne Heads of Government summit of about two years ago. That was a marvellous document, but it contained only words. If New Delhi reproduces the same rhetoric and nothing else, it will have been a failure for economic development.
  I wish to make some positive suggestions for the future. It is no longer the British Commonwealth; it is the

  107
  Commonwealth of nations. However, Britain still has a major role to play and the headquarters of the Commonwealth Secretariat are here. Why not try to arrange more frequent meetings of Commonwealth Ministers? For such Ministers to meet every couple of years is too infrequent, given the present state of the world economy and its financial markets.
  EC Ministers meet regularly, probably once a month, if not more often, depending on the subject they cover. The Commonwealth cannot go to those lengths, but we should try to aim at meetings once or twice a year for Ministers with common interests. Through the Commonwealth Secretariat we should try to ensure that as far as possible the views of Commonwealth countries are co-ordinated in international forums, not merely in the United Nations but at economic summits and so on.
  It should be remembered that at Western economic summits, of which Williamsburg was a prime example, no Third world or Commonwealth countries are represented other than Britain and Canada. In those circumstances, Britain and Canada have a moral duty and obligation to speak for the whole of the Commonwealth, not just for their own selfish interests, however important.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: It is not just the western side of the equation within the Commonwealth that must be balanced. Everyone goes home to his respective grouping. The non-aligned grouping has a considerable influence, especially as it includes countries such as India. Therefore, it is not as simple as bringing Britain and Canada together.
  Mr. Deakins: I was referring to Britain and Canada simply in relation to the economic summit of the seven major trading nations. I was not thinking of other international forums where, obviously, India and other countries have a vital role to play.
  We should also try to draw up a proper agenda for meetings of Heads of Governments within the Commonwealth. I concede that these meetings are often informal and that much of the best discussion takes place at the margins—to use that terrible Common Market phrase—outside the conference sessions. Nevertheless, at each meeting the Commonwealth ought to discuss trade and aid within the Commonwealth and what is happening about it.
  The Commonwealth should discuss also its attitude to the reform of international institutions. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, the Commonwealth experts' report from Delhi should be germane to those discussions. We cannot proceed, as the Minister said, when dealing with the debt problem and the IMF, merely with a case by case approach, because that smacks of expediency in the increasingly tense financial problems of the world. We must have a strategy to deal with the debt problems faced by many Commonwealth countries. It would be helpful if this subject were discussed at the Commonwealth conference.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting contribution to the debate. Is it not a contribution that in Paris last week the British Government agreed with nine other high-powered European and north Atlantic countries to enter into discussions about the whole monetary system? Yet the Government at the New Delhi conference are turning down a similar request from our Commonwealth partners.
  Mr. Deakins: Yes, I find that very strange. I think that that smacks of Britain still seeing itself as a rich country working with other rich countries to try to get the world economy woving in its own interests, without necessarily having regard to those of the poorer countries. The Government believe—I think that they are wrong—that if the economies of the rich countries are moving, the Third world countries, whatever their problems, will be dragged along in our wake. I do not believe that to be the case, even if it has been so during the past 30 years.
  I wish briefly to refer to the International Development Association. I have recently attended a conference with American legislators of the British-American parliamentary group. The prognosis by the members of the House of Representatives who sit on many important international economic committees is that it is unlikely that the United States will agree to an IDA seventh replenishment, which would give the World Bank the $16 billion that it requires during the replenishment period.
  It is unlikely that the United States will even agree to the sum which would give IDA $12 billion, which is the existing figure. The most that the American legislators are likely to allow the President to give—I am not sure about the Administration's attitude—is $0·75 billion annually, which would give the World Bank and IDA only $9 billion to spend, as opposed to the $12 billion and $16 billion for which they have asked. Compared with the progress made in recent years, that will be a great setback.
  If the United States reduces its contribution to $0·75 billion, which is less than that under the previous replenishment, will Britain do likewise? I sincerely hope not. I am sure that the House would welcome some reassurance on that important matter. Although we could not pick up all the pieces which the Americans will let fall if they reduce their contribution, we should not reduce our contribution proportionately just because American public opinion and legislators are not terribly interested in the Third world.
  Some hon. Members are worried about our remaining dependent territories—I leave aside the special problems of the Falklands, Gibraltar and Hong Kong—the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Virgin Islands and others. We spend very little on the economic development of those countries. We try to make them independent, but many are not economically viable. Will the Government consider inviting the rest of the Commonwealth to join Britain in establishing a programme of economic development for our remaining colonial dependencies, so that the Commonwealth as a whole helps to bring them up to an economic level at which they can achieve some economic viability and eventual independence?
  At each successive Commonwealth Heads of Government conference we must raise problems of the constraints on economic development that arise because of unrestrained or hardly restrained population growth. That was mentioned at the Cancun conference. I believe that this subject is much less sensitive than before. The world's population is increasing, and many Commonwealth countries have rapidly increasing populations, which will probably double towards the end of this century. That is only another 17 years away. The economic problems which they face, and which we shall, quite rightly, be asked to help them bear, will be compounded and made worse by rising populations. I am worried about public

  109
  opinion in this and other rich countries if the aid that we give merely goes to maintaining existing paltry standards of living, instead of making improvements.
  Sir Peter Mills: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the problem and on the key to the future of much of the Commonwealth. How can we convince the people on the ground that this is not just another Western idea, but is for their benefit?
  Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps being a little gloomy. In many Commonwealth and Third world countries Governments are taking population problems seriously. Although there are religious and cultural obstacles in many countries, the main problem is getting the facilities to the people. For example, in India, 700,000 villages need to receive contraceptive advice and supplies, and mother and child help facilities. That is a mammoth undertaking. With our help and that of other countries the Indian Government are doing their best despite the fact that the problem is immense.
  Hon. Members have a duty to ask the Government to put the Commonwealth at the forefront of their concerns. Outside the United Nations and its associated bodies, it is the only institution in the world which unites rich and poor countries and which is multi-racial. With the imagination that has been mentioned, we could make a lot more use of it. Whether at New Delhi or subsequently, I hope that we shall all do our best to urge the Government of the day to make better use of that marvellous institution.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) on a vigorous and constructive speech. Indeed, there have been many constructive speeches, and I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) in that regard. It is a compliment to the Commonwealth that this issue should be at the forefront of our minds and that we should suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he should take a lead.
  I congratulate the Minister, because he has obviously fought his corner well to be able to maintain and slightly increase the aid budget in the coming year. I also congratulate him on the ODA report, which is the first of its kind. It sets out well the Government's determination to maintain a real and substantial aid programme overseas, despite our own financial difficulties. However, my old friends in the Commonwealth Development Corporation are mentioned in the report as being able to borrow in the private sector. My right hon. Friend will know that for some unaccountable reason, the Government have prevented them from doing so, and have thus deprived the corporation of the ability to expand its portfolio in vital overseas projects, predominantly in the poorer countries and the small island economies.
  The Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi is to discuss "Towards a New Bretton Woods". However, I have one concern about the whole issue of international monetary reform. After 1970, when we abandoned the fixed exchange rates which came out of the original Bretton Woods agreement, we entered a period of floating exchange rates. That was analogous to the time when the world began to abandon the gold standard in the 1920s and
  110
  early 1930s. After that we also had a period of floating exchange rates. As a result, protection increased and employment expanded. Due to deprivation and the undermining of the currency in Germany, we gradually lurched into antagonism and then into war.
  The issue of international monetary reform is central to our domestic economic expansion and to that of the whole world. However, it is vital to the developing countries of the Commonwealth. The issue must be taken up and thought through. The Government must set up, even within the Treasury, a small group to research and develop ideas, because the current circumstances in which world trade is contracting cannot be permitted to continue from any country's point of view—developed or underdeveloped. Bretton Woods is a vital component of the New Delhi conference.
  The Opposition are being unfair to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the IMF and the IDA. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary undoubtedly led the replenishment of the quotas through his chairmanship of the interim committee. That is acknowledged throughout the world. It may not be enough, but it was a major contribution to the reform of the IMF and its resources.
  Secondly, much to my astonishment, his successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer persuaded the American Administration that it was vital that they should back the IMF quota increase that was then going through Congress. I am relieved to find that, in the past week, Congress has, in spite of itself, passed that increase. The IDA replenishment issue was well set out by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I understand that the problem in Washington is that the Administration are putting forward a $9 billion IDA and that Congress—I checked this 'with a leading Congressman in the House of Representatives—would be willing to go along with the $12 billion which is the current rate.
  I do not accept my right hon. Friend's statement that he will not tell us what level he will support. He has an obligation, in his turn, to persuade our American allies that $12 billion is the minimum that should go to IDA. From IDA come those vital projects in the poorest countries which begin to generate wealth, employment and exports, which bring in vital foreign exchange and which begin therefore to prime the pump that launches them on their recovery. Without that many of the developing countries will not be able to begin to go forward through the recession. It is that vital.
  I believe that Grenada is a shameful incident in Commonwealth history. We can put the blame on both sides of the House and on the United Nations for what happened. Eric Gairy was a tyrant, a tormenter of his people—the Mongoose gang terrorised the country. He took land away without compensation and gave it to his friends; he ran down the island's economy and reduced it from the most prosperous of the Windward and Leeward Islands to the lowest economic level of those islands. I have no time for Mr. Gairy. We wrongly agreed to his becoming Sir Eric Gairy. He contributed to the problems that we face in that small island.
  Mr. Eric Gairy was offered independence by Lord Shepherd when he was a Minister in the Foreign Office under the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. I thought that the offer of independence to Mr. Gairy was despicable not just because the Minister knew his record, which I

  111
  have just described, but because Mr. Gairy usurped and turned upside down the intentions of the West Indies Act 1967, which said that if Mr. Gairy wanted independence from Britain he would have to get a two thirds majority in the legislature, and put the matter to a referendum, in which 75 per cent. of the population would have to vote in favour. All of that would have to happen before Britain would entertain an application for independence. All of that was swept aside and Britain gave Grenada six months' notice that she would end the relationship, with no reference to the electorate in Grenada. That undermines the fundamental ideas of democracy that we hold so dear. We have gone on. We have done it to St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent, St Kitts, Nevis and Antigua. What an example to set of the way in which to run and support a democracy.
  The only time that I have marched on the streets of London was in the company of the New Jewel movement based in London, to protest against the independence of Grenada, offered by the Foreign Office Minister then in charge, Lord Balniel, a Conservative Member. That was disgraceful. The New Jewel movement consisted of several elements. It consisted of Marxists, Communists and also nationalists, of which I should say Maurice Bishop was one. However, it was ignored and decried. It was not even analysed and I do not believe that the Foreign Office got close enough to find out what was happening.
  When Maurice Bishop went back to Grenada, the constitution was operated, however imperfectly. There was an election, but Eric Gairy got his Mongoose gang to terrorise the voters so that they did not go to the polls. However, Maurice Bishop managed to be be elected, and was leader of the opposition when he led the bloodless revolution. There is no doubt that his force was backed by Cuba. What did the United Nations, Britain and the eastern Caribbean states do? Nothing. They did not condemn the forced takeover of a legally elected and established Government in Grenada. We did nothing. Yet when Maurice Bishop was killed, the British Government said that they could not interfere with the sovereign state of Grenada, go to the rescue of all the democracy-loving people of that island and begin to restore to them the liberty that should never have been put at risk by what I regard as the irresponsible position that the British Government took in their relationship with that small, vulnerable island. It is not possible to give those people independence in the real meaning of the word.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman, like myself, was a member of the Select Committee that reported in the previous Session of Parliament and made specific recommendations on Grenada. One was that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should improve the quality of its representation on Grenada so that we could get more accurate information about what was going on. Secondly, it recommended that the British Government should have consultations with the Government of Grenada with a view to the resumption of a bilateral aid programme. Is it not a tragedy that both those recommendations were ignored by the FCO? Something could have been done to avert the tragedy in Grenada.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We could have taken
  112
  measures to become closer to the Government of Grenada, prevent the tradegy and promote the restoration of a democratic Government. I believe that Maurice Bishop understood that if he was to get tourists on to the island, he would have to become closer to Britain. A precondition was that he had to hold elections. That could have happened, but the situation became desperate and there was an explosion.
  The hon. Gentleman is not correct. Our representation in Grenada was changed as a result of the Select Committee's recommendation. Mr. Kelly took over there and has been there since we visited the island. I imagine that his reports are more accurate than those of the representative whom we met, and who had not met a Minister in Grenada since he had arrived two years before. So we did not know what the devil was happening and we had nothing on which to base a policy of sound information. However, that is in the past now; let us look at what we must do in future.
  Essentially, we must do two things. First, we must offer to provide a massive increase in economic aid to Grenada. I know that Ministers will throw up their hands in horror and say, "That is terrible, we do not have the money." Yet although I say massive, the amount of money involved is tiny because we have been gradually cutting down aid to Grenada. There must be a positive introduction of economic development, in conjunction with other members of the Commonwealth, especially the richer members, and with Caricom and the eastern Caribbean states. It is a matter of real urgency. I want the Government to demonstrate that they understand the urgency and need for such development.
  Secondly, we should consider means by which we can guarantee the democracies, not only through their defence load, but by ensuring that democracy continues to grow in those islands. There should be a pact, backed by Britain, the Commonwealth and the United States, aimed at ensuring the orderly development of the political scene in those countries. I do not know quite how that will be done, but there must be concerted action within Caricom and the eastern Caribbean states—Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad—to bring about stability in the political regimes of the islands.
  The islands are tiny, and could easily be taken over. Hon. Members of this House, armed with guns, could take over St. Lucia tomorrow morning if they flew there in a 747. The islands are vulnerable not only to attack but to subversion and economic decay.
  It is our responsibility as a member of the Commonwealth to organise a support system for the islands so that they can live in peace, look forward to economic development and be sure that they will not be ruled by tyrants, of whatever complexion. I am sure that that will be a major item for discussion in India. I hope that Britain will respond positively and creatively. If we do not there will be more Grenadas—at least five in the Caribbean and others throughout the world.
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford ad Stortford (Mr. Wells). I hope that the points that he has so carefully and articulately made tonight will be on the agenda of the New Delhi meeting.

  113
  In the last few moments before the Front Bench spokesmen speak, I wish to comment on the part of the motion that calls for
  "a major project for international economic recovery which would benefit the United Kingdom, the countries of the Commonwealth and the world".
  My remarks are against the background of the Commonwealth communiqué issued after the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Trinidad and Tobago on 21 and 22 September. They were in no doubt about the state of the poorer countries of the Commonwealth. They referred to the developing countries where real per capita incomes have declined for three successive years. They referred to development efforts that have been disrupted and economic prospects that have remained especially grim. They showed that real interest rates have been persistently high, that exchange rates have been volatile, that the debt system has been precarious, and that there has been protectionism, virtual stagnation in the flow of development assistance and adverse terms of trading. Those are some factors that dominate the thinking of Third world countries as they go to New Delhi. It would be remarkable if those Commonwealth countries, especially the undeveloped nations without the succour of their own oil, were to turn their gaze to New Delhi and to reflect that the leaders of the Commonwealth were about to embark on a new financial and economic beginning.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say whether the Government are prepared at New Delhi to take an initiative to provide leadership and to agree that there should be a new Bretton Woods agreement.
  The problems of those in the Third world who starve and are not comforted are related directly to the world's financial and economic policies. If the concept of Tina—the pin-up of the Conservative party—about which we have heard much during the past four years, has been disastrous for the 2 million newly unemployed since 1979, how much greater is the disaster when translated from the world scene to Commonwealth and Third world countries which have no oil and few natural resources of their own? It would be uplifting for those people if, out of New Delhi, there came the seeds of a new financial and economic order.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said, the old world order that was created at Bretton Woods in 1944 is dead. Many contributions made tonight have confirmed that. We can talk about the lack of convertibility to gold in the 1920s and about the American decision on 15 August 1971 to move from the convertibility of the dollar to gold, but when John Maynard Keynes helped to set up the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1944 he set up the bank as a fund and the fund as a bank. The Minister, in congratulatory tones, said that the United States Government have increased their contribution to the IMF, but the sum is modest and so insufficient that the group of 10 in Zurich is discussing a further £6,000 million standby credit for the IMF. The fund is no longer a fund and the bank is no longer a bank, and the Third world feels the strain and looks to New Delhi for solutions to the problems. I accept that those solutions cannot be brought about easily and that we cannot, simply by waving a magic wand, create a new order. However, we can give leadership and we can seek, in accordance with the recommendations of the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, to bring about that new order.
  114
  When Commonwealth Finance Ministers met at Port of Spain, in their report, "Towards a New Bretton Woods", they had specific objectives in mind: that there should be measures to support economic recovery, to provide sufficient liquidity from official and private sources to developing countries, to alleviate the plight of the poorer countries and to prepare for a discussion of international economic reform. Those proposals were made by the Commonwealth Finance Ministers.
  When the Secretary-General reflected on the modest increase in the IMF quota of the United States Government, he pointed out that, even with that increase, the ratio of quotas to world imports would be lower than it was in the 1960s. The Secretary-General also said that a Commonwealth Secretariat analysis showed that between July 1982 and June 1983 three quarters of the total commitments of the IMF went to the five developing countries with the largest debts. Although he paid tribute to the United States for providing a new quota increase, he also said that it was a matter of hard reality that when the United States chose to increase its budget deficit and refrain from increasing taxes, each 1 per cent. increase in interest rates added £2,000 million to the debt burden of less developed countries. Those factors must be considered at the conference this week.
  The poor Commonweath countries are directly affected by the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and by the deterioration of their oil trade balance, because their non-oil terms of trade have deteriorated and they must meet extra interest repayments to service their sovereign debts. The Minister failed to understand the consequences for the Commonwealth, as well as for Britain, if the flood of sovereign debts that is engulfing the world risks putting one debtor nation under, so that the problem of sovereign debt comes into direct collision with our democracies and those of the Commonwealth.
  A new Bretton Woods agreement will eventually be the order of the day, not just because it will be on the agenda of the Heads of Government meeting, nor because the world is awash with sovereign debt—the position is rather like the sorcerer's apprentice, who does not know when to stop carrying water—but because, as debts pile up, Third world countries will be the losers.
  I end with a quotation from Henry Thoreau, who in the last century said:
  "There is no ill which may not be dissipated like the dark if you let in a stronger light upon it; but if the light you use is but a narrow and paltry taper most objects shall cast a shadow wider than themselves."
  At the New Delhi conference Third world countries and the Commonwealth will be looking for what, in the Methodist villages of old, were called men of vision. We do not mind if we also have women of vision at the conference, but we are afraid that the vision will be seriously diminished and that we shall have at New Delhi nothing short of the light of a paltry taper.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on bringing the House, after an informed and well-balanced debate, round to the critical matters that face the Commonwealth Heads of Government at their conference in New Delhi. The debate has been wide-ranging, as is to be expected with a matter so close to hon. Members' hearts, and in the few minutes allocated to me I shall try

  115
  to reply on behalf of the Opposition. I hope that some of the more important questions that were asked by hon. Members this evening will elicit perceptive answers from the Minister when he replies.
  The debate was rightly dominated by the economic and financial issues that will be discussed in New Delhi, but there are many other matters that could equally have taken up our time. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) rightly commented on Grenada, which will inevitably be much discussed at the conference. Namibia is another country whose problems cause anxiety to many people not least to its long-suffering inhabitants. The initiative taken by President Shagari of Nigeria will be strongly commended to the representatives at the conference, and Britain, as a member of the contact group, should listen carefully to the message of a positive initiative which could perhaps break the deadlock in that area. The problems of Belize, Cyprus and Hong Kong could also have been legitimately discussed during such a wide-ranging debate, but no doubt we shall return to those matters in future debates.
  The Commonwealth still provides a unique forum for the discussion of issues that go well beyond the immediate problems of Commonwealth countries themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said in an outstanding contribution, the Commonwealth brings together a blend, perhaps a unique blend, of countries, both rich and poor, of all races, types and sizes. All the other conferences that he outlined failed to take on board the massive problems that face the world, partly because they were made up either of all the rich countries, as at Williamsburg, or of all the poor countries, as at UNCTAD. They all failed to produce answers to the difficulties. Perhaps the unique organisation of the Commonwealth will bring together the north and south, and perhaps find a resolution to the dilemma that faces us today.
  I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), because he has worked with the Commonwealth Secretariat. He told the House that the Commonwealth was not the forum to discuss these huge issues, nor should it try to do so. If that is not the forum at which to try to reach a resolution of these problems, what is the forum at which to do that? All the other forums have failed to come up with an answer. We lurch from crisis to crisis. If the Commonwealth conference, which is longer than any other which Heads of Government deem it important to attend, cannot produce an answer, one must despair of the world's capacity to solve the problem.
  The crucial issue for the future of the world is whether we are capable of resolving the financial crises which constantly threaten to engulf us all. In a world which is dominated by issues of security and defence, where the enormous risks of nuclear weapons, piled one on top of the other, pose enormous problems and risks which should not be underestimated—not least the consequences for the finances of the world when so much of the resources are spent on armaments—we cannot underestimate the consequences for future generations if the world does not solve the economic crisis that confronts it today. President Reagan, who is often given to strong rhetoric in defence of one or another ideological point, said recently about the International Monetary Fund, which he defended in the
  116
  United States Congress, that if the replenishment from the United States did not take place an economic nightmare might occur which could plague generations to come. President Reagan used that as an argument to persuade Congress to give resources to the IMF, and he succeeded in persuading it so to do. He did not underestimate the problem that confronts us all.
  The challenge to our generation today is as significant as the challenge to the generation in 1944 that gave birth to the first Bretton Woods arrangement. The world was conscious at that time that a world war had destroyed not only world stability but a whole generation of people. I say, as one who was born two years after the first Bretton Woods conference, that unless our generation gets to grips with the problem, as that generation did, with vision and determination, future generations, as President Reagan said, will be plagued for years to come. That is why it is important for Commonwealth countries to take on board the radical recommendations that are contained in the document "Towards a new Bretton Woods".
  I do not understand the Government's attitude to that document and their whole approach to a radical restructuring of world financial institutions. The report was commissioned by and was the idea of Prime Minister Muldoon of New Zealand. He is no great radical, and he is certainly no Socialist. The committee was set up under the chairmanship of Professor Helleiner of Canada, an eminent authority in this connection. The British representative was Sir Jeremy Marsh. Far from being one of the mad Marxists, whom the Government so fear, he is the chairman of Lloyds Bank and a man of eminent financial acumen.
  The point must be emphasised that the report about which we are speaking—and the reform which we invoke in the project for which we are calling in the motion—was radical, emphatic, perceptive and unanimous. All the parties involved in that process came to the conclusion that something radical had to be done about the future of the world's financial institutions. They also agreed that that action had to be taken immediately and that, if that were not done, the consequences would be horrendous for the stability of the world's economies.
  Therefore it pales into the ludicrous when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been praised in various contexts—for example, for the pressure he put on the United States—dismisses the most radical proposals of the report as irrelevant. Without saying that specifically, without ever granting an interview and without informing the House of Commons, he feeds out the information that the Government have grave reservations about the majority of the important recommendations in it. If we looked for enlightenment in the Minister's opening remarks, we simply got his statement that the Government were not sure what a new Bretton Woods conference could produce, although it was not rejected in principle.
  The Minister made that statement following his claim that he had read the report. However, the report was careful to say that a new Bretton Woods conference would not be the first stage in the process of re-ordering the world's economic institutions but would be the final stage. That would take place after a realisation of the need for new institutions and of the reality of what could be achieved.
  I am therefore totally unsure now of the Government's position on the subject. One can only hope that the Prime

  117
  Minister, who is winging her way to New Delhi, but who presumably will be without the advantage of the advice that we are offering tonight, will have a more perceptive awareness of what the report says.
  Hon. Members have stressed the crucial issues facing the Commonwealth countries. We must remember that the majority of Commonwealth countries are among the less developed, as defined by the international institutions. Hence, the Commonwealth is predominantly a Third world institution, although it has that careful blend of rich and poor that gives it the great potential that we look to for a resolution of the world's problems.
  In speaking of the need to replenish the IDA's finances and take account of the problems that are occurring in that context, hon. Members have failed to point out that 70 per cent. of IDA flows are to Commonwealth countries. Thus, we above all have a stake in making sure that the United States does not rat on its obligations to the IDA which, as an institution, is of the greatest importance.
  Sonny Ramphal, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, a man of great experience, has been prayed in aid so often in the debate that he has become almost a hero. Even the Minister paid careful tribute to him; and, as one of the great supporters of the Government during the Falklands conflict, well should Conservative Members recognise the role that he has to play as a most perceptive individual.
  In what must be considered to have been an extremely significant speech to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Port of Spain—so significant that hon. Members have referred to it time and again in the debate—Sonny Ramphal said that any restriction on the finances of the IDA would be
  "a particularly direct way of enlarging human suffering."
  Therefore, I hope that the Minister will tell us of the Government's regret about the way in which other countries, specifically the United States of America, are treating their obligations under the next replenishmemt of the IDA.
  If the Government are truly proud of their role in the refunding of the International Monetary Fund—we have heard it so often and credit is due in terms of leading that refunding—and if they recognise the importance to the Commonwealth of the World Bank and of the IDA, let them take a similar stand, and let the Chancellor of the Exchequer squeeze the Americans again and tell them how important an American lead would be in refunding the IDA. If what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said is right, following his discussions in Bermuda, or the Bahamas, or some other less well developed country that he was visiting last week, and the United States of America is planning a cutback in its funding to the IDA, let us hope that the Government will make a stand. If they believe what they say, the time to give a lead is now.
  Although the IMF has been saved at the last moment by public intervention in the United States market, its problems are not over. The fact that three quarters of the total American commitments to the IMF were to only five debtor countries means that the problems will be horrendous for the next year. Although we have escaped like the "Perils of Pauline" in the nick of time from this trap, the problem is still there.
  The Commonwealth conference is an opportunity to see with some vision and determination the problems that confront our generation and will confront future
  118
  generations unless we solve them. Sonny Ramphal said that a move towards a new Bretton Woods conference would be
  "a process of working together without rhetoric or a spirit of confrontation, as fellow-citizens of one world and not as adversaries from separate worlds".
  That theme would go down well in New Delhi. It is an inspiration for which our generation is looking, and if we fail in developing that consensus, if we fail in grasping that opportunity, our recovery and the recovery of every other industrialised country in the world is in peril. The chance is there and we must hope that when she is in New Delhi the Prime Minister will grasp that opportunity.
  10.13 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) spoke of the "Perils of Pauline" and in the last minute of his speech brought us back to the Opposition motion, which is the subject of the debate. It has been an interesting debate but for the most part has been a re-run of the Brandt debates that we have had so many times in the House. Perhaps we are none the worse for that, but it is odd that the Opposition should have chosen this form of motion. I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, return to that in a moment. In the short time that is available to me it is not possible to answer all the important points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made what appeared to be a worrying point about the reduction in ODA staff over the next four years from 1,793 to 1,500. I am delighted to be able to set his mind at rest, because that mostly reflects the transfer of the directorate of overseas surveys. In effect, only 50 staff will be lost over a four-year period. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, even within the bounds of the ODA, it must be possible to accomplish that without detriment to the management of our aid programme.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), in his wide-ranging contribution, attacked, for example, the efforts we are making in the Falkland Islands and yet called for aid and understanding of the rights of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, a call that we would support as we hope the Sri Lankan Government do——
  Mr. Alton rose——
  Mr. Whitney: I cannot give way in the time that is available to me.
  I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the efforts being made in the Falkland Islands relate to the interests, the rights and the self-determination of the Falkland islanders. While we continue to face a Government that will not declare a cease-fire, we have no alternative to that policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who always makes a powerful contribution to these debates, called for aid to Grenada. I hope that when the needs of Grenada are clear the Government will be ready to respond to whatever is required. My hon. Friend referred to the vulnerability of islands such as Grenada. He will recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already recognised that problem, and I have no doubt that that will be the subject of discussions in New Delhi.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), in an interesting contribution, called for vision, as did the hon.

  119
  Member for Hamilton. I agree that there should be vision. The Opposition do not have vision, but a capacity to be starry-eyed. In the motion the Opposition are looking for unanimity in the Commonwealth. The idea that the Commonwealth is an organisation where political co-operation can be brought to the point that has been suggested by the Opposition is, as the Opposition should understand, unrealistic. No party, including Labour, which has such difficulties in reaching consensus among its membership, should underestimate the possible differences between 48 independent sovereign countries when trying to reach a consensus. The Commonwealth offers a magnificent opportunity for international understanding. Anyone who has been connected with any sort of Commonwealth activity—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made this point during his opening remarks—will understand that the Commnwealth is unique, and could not be invented. We should all be grateful for our membership in and our connection with it.
  I have no doubt that the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference will not be a rehearsal of platitudes, as stated by the gentleman from The Sunday Times, who was quoted with such approbation by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, but a meeting of like-minded people who have signed the Commonwealth declaration at Singapore, who adhere to the same principles and approach the problems of the world in a remarkably similar manner.
  The utopian, unrealistic idealism of the Opposition on economic content is even more remarkable. We have had references many times to one of the three Commonwealth documents on protectionism. The Labour party's attitudes to protectionism tell a different story. I correct the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. He should not blame us for protectionism. He should have referred to the Labour party. "Labour's Programme 1982" states
  "We will therefore set import penetration ceilings on an industry-by-industry basis across a broad range of sectors."
  It continued:
  "The main principles are that the overall 'global limits' for imports of textiles should be maintained and extended to cover `outward processing' and to countries with which the EEC has preferential agreements."
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whitney: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman had much longer than I have. Do Labour Members not understand the importance of trade to developing countries? How dare they talk about economic co-operation while they peddle views of that kind?
  Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whitney: No. The Labour party also suggested in "New Hope for Britain"—we used to call it "No Hope for Britain"—the introduction of back-up import controls using tariff and quotas.
  Mr. Holland rose——
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman had 20 minutes.
  More is threatened. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), writing on 23 September, talked about withdrawal from the EC. Yet the contribution of the EC to the opportunities for the Caribbean, the ACP countries and the Commonwealth countries is enormous. The Opposition should understand that.
  Mr. Holland rose——
  Mr. Whitney: No, I will not give way. The Labour party cannot duck this issue. They cannot suggest economic co-operation while advocating import controls in one policy document after another.
  Mr. Bell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Whitney: No, I will not give way. Nor can the hon. Member for Vauxhall talk about withdrawal from the EC when everyone knows——
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Not three at a time, please.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hope that I can help him. Will he use the remaining time to deal with today's debate and the Commonwealth conference?
  Mr. Whitney: I shall be delighted to do so, but I am also keen to ensure that the issues so carefully ducked by the Labour party will be ducked no longer.
  Mr. Holland rose——
  Mr. Whitney: This must be nailed. The Labour party cannot continue to preach economic co-operation in one breath and import controls in the next.
  Mr. Holland rose——
  Mr. Whitney: The Opposition suggest that government policy will delay recovery. The policies for recovery are not the Labour party policies of creating ever more paper money and inflation but those agreed, for example, at Williamsburg and supported by many other Governments, including some Socialist Governments. Perhaps the hon. Member for Vauxhall would care to discuss that with his Socialist friends on the other side of the Channel. All the countries at Williamsburg and many earlier conferences recognised that we must focus on achieving and maintaining low inflation and reducing the present too-high interest rates.
  We renew our commitment to reduce structural budget deficits, especially by limiting the growth of expenditure. That is the voice of sanity, realism and experience. The hon. Member for Vauxhall said a great deal about the Bretton Woods conference. The Opposition should know that it was inflationary domestic policies that precipitated the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system and not the other way round. Although the British Labour party is slow to learn, I am delighted that most other Socialist parties in the world are learning and understand that problem. When the Opposition talk about the problems of inflation, if they believe that the answer is to launch the world on another bout of printing money, like the Bourbons, they learn absolutely nothing.
  Of course we understand the problems. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend made his proposals at the IMF and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his proposals in September. We understand that there is no cheap panacea and no magic formula or mirage as the Opposition motion suggests. There is a steady hard grind to economic reality. That is the work that the Government and other sensible Governments of the world are embarked upon. That is what will offer the market that the developing world wants.
  Mr. George Robertson: Which market?
  Mr. Whitney: The market of the European Community, out of which the hon. Gentleman wants to take us. It comprises 270 million people.
  Mr. Holland rose——
  Mr. Whitney: The Opposition's proposition has been utterly exploded. It is based on shifting sands and I invite the Hose to reject the motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 332.

  Division No. 74]

  [10.25 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Fisher, Mark

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Flannery, Martin

  Alton, David

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Forrester, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Ashton, Joe

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Freud, Clement

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Barnett, Guy

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, John

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Gould, Bryan

  Beith, A. J.

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Blair, Anthony

  Haynes, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

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

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Howells, Geraint

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cartwright, John

  John, Brynmor

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clay, Robert

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cohen, Harry

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Coleman, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Craigen, J. M.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Crowther, Stan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Loyden, Edward

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

  McGuire, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dixon, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dormand, Jack

  McTaggart, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  Madden, Max

  Dubs, Alfred

  Marek, Dr John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Martin, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mikardo, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  122

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Nellist, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, William

  Snape, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Park, George

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Parry, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Patchett, Terry

  Strang, Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Jack

  Pike, Peter

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Randall, Stuart

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Redmond, M.

  Tinn, James

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Torney, Tom

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George

  Wareing, Robert

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Weetch, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Michael

  Rooker, J. W.

  White, James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Ryman, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Harry Cowans and Mr. Austin Mitchell.

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Amess, David

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Ancram, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Tom

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baldry, Anthony

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Beggs, Roy

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Critchley, Julian

  Benyon, William

  Crouch, David

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Best, Keith

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dicks, T.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Denshore

  Bottomley, Peter

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Dunn, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brinton, Tim

  Eyre, Reginald

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fallon, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Favell, Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Browne, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Budgen, Nick

  Forth, Eric

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Marcus

  Butcher, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Butterfill, John

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  123

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fry, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Gale, Roger

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lightbown, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Lilley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lord, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Luce, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Greenway, Harry

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Grist, Ian

  Maclean, David John.

  Ground, Patrick

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Grylls, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

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

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Madel, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Major, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maples, John

  Hannam, John

  Marland, Paul

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Marlow, Antony

  Harris, David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Harvey, Robert

  Maude, Francis

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Mellor, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Merchant, Piers

  Hayes, J.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hayward, Robert

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Heddle, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Henderson, Barry

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Hicks, Robert

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hind, Kenneth

  Moore, John

  Hirst, Michael

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Holt, Richard

  Mudd, David

  Hooson, Tom

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hordern, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howard, Michael

  Needham, Richard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Neubert, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Newton, Tony

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Norris, Steven

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Hunter, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Osborn, Sir John

  Irving, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jackson, Robert

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Jessel, Toby

  Parris, Matthew

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Pawsey, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Key, Robert

  Pollock, Alexander

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Porter, Barry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Powley, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Knox, David

  Price, Sir David

  Lamont, Norman

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lang, Ian

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Latham, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  124

  Renton, Tim

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Waddington, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Silvester, Fred

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Speed, Keith

  Watson, John

  Speller, Tony

  Watts, John

  Spence, John

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Spencer, D.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Whitfield, John

  Squire, Robin

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stokes, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Question accordingly negatived.

  European Community (Steel)
  10.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6374/83, Fourth Report on the application of the rules for aids to the steel industry, 6450/83, General Objectives for Steel 1985 and 6375/83, Proposal for a Council Decision relating to a contribution to the European Coal and Steel Community out of the General Budget of the Communities; and welcomes the Government's support given in the Council of Ministers for the ECSC Steel Anti-Crisis Measures.
  The purpose of the debate is to take note of three EC documents relating to the steel industry as recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation. The first document, 6450/83 takes a forward look from the present to 1985. Under the ECSC treaty, the Commission is required to lay objectives for the European steel industry. Much of the document is background comment on the state of the industry. The outlook as seen by the Commission is gloomy. The Commission is updating the data and views expressed in the document. The document is gloomy and hard-hitting but realistic.
  The document forecasts that consumption and demand for steel within the Community up to 1985 will fall. That is perhaps a reminder to us, because the House is often told that only the United Kingdom industry faces a fall in

  125
  consumption. The document also forecasts that competition internationally will become much fiercer. It makes the point that the EC steel industry has reacted less effectively than some of its competitors in other parts of the world. It says that the Japanese steel industry has adapted by cost cutting, and even the American steel industry, which in many ways is technically more backward, has reacted quickly by bringing capacity more into line with demand and the market.
  That is important because we are accustomed to compare our industry with that in other EC countries, but the comparison must also be with the industry in countries outside Europe. If we are not competitive with industries outside Europe, we shall penalise our steel-using industries. That is important because many more people are employed in the steel-using industries than in the steel industry.
  The document says that the structural crisis facing the industry is being made worse by escalating Government aid to the steel industry. It says also that there are dangers in Europe of the industry becoming overprotective and developing hidebound attitudes. In other words, the Commission's view is that the European industry has not been changing sufficiently or quickly enough.
  When there is so much argument about where the burden of the cuts has fallen and where they will fall next, the Commission makes the important point that production sharing must be related to efficiency. It cannot be done on the basis of Buggins' turn—"We had the cuts last."
  To underline that point, the document says that, if a company is having recourse to Government aid, that shows that it is not an efficient undertaking and that it still has to adapt to new market trends. Our Government policy of returning BSC to viability is the best insurance against the British steel industry being required to make further cuts.
  The main conclusion of the document—this is the gloomy point—is that there is likely to be an excess of supply over demand, which will deepen, and that surplus capacity is likely to be about 50 million tonnes. That is equal to one third of the in-store steel capacity in Europe. The Commission concludes that the objective must be to reduce capacity throughout Europe. For that reason, Government aids to the steel industry must be linked to restructuring. The document confirms that aids to the industry should end by 1985, and that in the meantime aids that do not correspond with the criteria laid down by the Commission will not be approved. That is an important point. Those criteria include that aid should be part of a plan for an undertaking to achieve viability.
  I should like to give the House some information about recent developments in EC steel measures. As the House knows, there have been a series of measures to bring supply and demand into balance and to maintain prices. We have had mandatory quotas for production and sales in the Community. They have been in force for three years. In July, the Council of Ministers was able to agree to renew quotas only until 31 January 1984, so there will have to be another Council to consider quotas in the near future.
  However, those arrangements have been only partially successful in maintaining price stability. Prices for certain products, especially on the continent, have deteriorated during the second half of this year. Prices currently being charged in the market place for hot rolled coil are in some cases 280 ecu per tonne, or lower, compared with a
  126
  published guidance price of 380 ecu. The Commission, on which the ECSC treaty confers major responsibilities, has decided that further action is required to arrest the decline in prices. It has accordingly announced its intention to introduce mandatory minimum prices for certain flat products with effect from 1 December, and is currently engaged in prior consultations with producers, traders, consumers and member states. The Government understand the reasons for that action. Our aim will be to ensure that any such measures are effective, workable and enforced throughout the Community. We shall also make it clear to our partners that this short-term action cannot and must not distract from the need to tackle the root cause of the problems, which is the persistence of excess capacity.
  Mr. Stan Crowther: Would it not be equally fair to say that the root cause was not so much excess capacity as lack of demand? If there were throughout the Community, especially in this country, a substantial increase in demand from the motor car, shipbuilding, railway and construction industries, would not the gap between capacity and demand be greatly reduced.
  Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will be aware, this year we had record sales in our motor industry. That produced a great opportunity for the steel industry. It is not as if imports have been increasing. Indeed, they have been decreasing. There is no doubt that there is a massive overcapacity not just in Europe but in the United States and Japan. It is a worldwide phenomenon. As the first document makes clear, part of the reason for the fall in demand for steel is not a lack of demand in an aggregate sense, but a structural change Much material is being used as a substitute for steel. Therefore, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says
  There are also arrangements on imports. Imports from third countries accounted for about 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom market this year. That figure is below traditional levels. Total import penetration of the United Kingdom steel market this year, from Community and non-Community sources, is just over 23 per cent., compared with 26 per cent. last year. Imports from the EC of 16 per cent. are the lowest level recorded for some years. In current discussions in Brussels on the prolongation of third country import arrangements in 1984, emphasis is placed on ensuring that partner countries respect the traditional trade flows.
  Document 6374/83 is the fourth report by the Commission on the application of the aid rules, and it covers the period 1 June 1982 to 31 January 1983. It includes detailed tables on the amount of aid notified by member states, and lists the cases dealt with in the relevant period. Most important, the document notes that the capacity cuts offered by individual member states fell well short of the target of 30 million to 35 million tonnes that the Commission consider is the amount that needs to be removed from the market by the end of 1985 to restore equilibrium.
  The important point about the document is that it is now out of date. It has been overtaken by further negotiations which led to a series of Commission decisions on 29 June under the aids regime. The decisions required further capacity cuts throughout the Community, by the end of

  127
  1985, of 8·3 million tonnes, in addition to cuts of 18·4 million tonnes already undertaken since 1980 or promised by member states in return for the approval of aid.
  The Government regarded the outcome as positive for two reasons. First, they confirmed the Commission's resolve to administer the rules on aid and restructuring fairly throughout the Community. Secondly, although the decision calls for a further cut of 500,000 tonnes by the United Kingdom, it requires by far the bulk of future capacity cuts to be made in other member states. Therefore, it recognises that the United Kingdom has shouldered its burden of contributions towards restructuring.
  As regards the 500,000 tonnes proposed for the United Kingdom, I assure the House that we shall make it clear to the Commission that any such commitment is conditional upon other states fulfilling their obligations. Cuts will take place only if they are necessary to improve BSC's competitiveness. They will not take place simply at the behest of the Community.
  The signs are that the Commission now recognises that it is the turn of other countries to match the United Kingdom. There are also signs that other Governments within the Community also recognise that. The Commission's decision on 29 June acknowledged Britain's restructuring achievement, and called on other member states to shoulder their part of the painful burden of restructuring.
  The effect of the decision on 29 June is that, of the total restructuring in Europe in the period 1980 to 1985, the Germans will contribute 22 per cent., the Italians 22 per cent., the French 20 per cent. and the Belgians 12 per cent. The United Kingdom would contribute 17 per cent., with the exception of the 500,000 tonnes that it has already contributed. That shows that other countries will be required to shoulder their share of the responsibility.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister confirm that member countries that did not comply with the previous quotas laid down by Commissioner Davignon will now satisfy the regulations? Will Italy retroactively cut its production, which it did not cut under the previous quota system, and will Germany, which was fined for not complying with the previous quotas, now pay the fines that it owes before Britain cuts even more capacity?
  Mr. Lamont: The signs are that the other countries will take action. The French have already publicly committed themselves to restructuring, up to 1985, by almost the same amount as Britain has restructured. Belgium and Luxembourg are also squaring up to the need for major capacity reductions. The position is uncertain in Germany because of the Thyssen Krupp merger, but when Count Lambsdorff met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Anglo-German summit, he made it clear that Germany would carry out capacity reductions before 1985. Even in Italy, the Commission's decision has at least forced both the Italian Government and the industry to face the fact that they, too, must reduce capacity. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Commission has the power to withdraw the approval of aid if countries do not abide by its decision. However, those assurances have been given——
  Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that Commissioner Davignon said that the restructuring aid that
  128
  is forthcoming will be available only if capacity is reduced? Will the Minister not talk about restructuring aid for the industry? The aid is related to reduced capacity.
  Mr. Lamond: That is correct, and I thought that the House understood that. I apologise for using the euphemism "restructuring" when I should have said "reduced capacity". However, no one is in any doubt that that is what we are talking about.
  The Government believe that the Commission's decisions in June were satisfactory to Britain. Although those developments were moderately satisfactory, it does not mean that we can relax our efforts to make the British Steel Corporation viable. It is more important than ever that we continue those efforts.
  The House is conscious that Britain has done more restructuring than other European countries, but some of our EC partners say that we have also given more aid to our steel industry than have other countries. If we continue to give aid, we must expect to be pressed to make more cuts. If an undertaking continues to receive aid, in the eyes of the Commission it is inefficient and should contribute to capacity reductions. The logic of the Commission's view, which accords with Government policy, is that we have every reason to redouble our efforts to make BSC a viable undertaking.
  Fortunately, the outlook is moderately encouraging. We still hope that the corporation can break even, before interest, in 1984–85. There are some encouraging signs for the corporation. There has been a small increase in the demand for steel in Britain, whereas demand is reducing in Europe. Imports have decreased, output is recovering from the depressed level of the last quarter of last year, and in the first nine months of 1983 productivity was extremely good. The corporation achieved an output of 210 tonnes per man-year, which compares with an average of 206 tonnes in West Germany. One does not say that all will be plain sailing from now on, but we have a very different position from that which pertained in 1979. It is a remarkable improvement.
  The final document, 6375/83, covers social support measures that are designed to cushion the social costs of restructuring. During the past three years the Council has authorised the Commission to make payments totalling 212 million ecu to member states as a contribution to the costs of early retirement, severance pay assistance, temporary short-time working, and making up the salaries of people who move to other occupations. The House debated the proposals to establish that first programme of measures on 15 January 1981, and the United Kingdom stands to be a net beneficiary from this first part of the programme.
  The proposals in document 6375183 envisage continuing with those measures, including new types of assistance, to be financed by the transfer of 330 million ecu from the general budget of the Communities. The details are still under negotiation in Brussels. I should make it clear that the United Kingdom is much less likely to benefit from the second set of measures than from the first, for the simple reason—perhaps this will be good news—that we expect redundancies to happen elsewhere in Europe, not in this country. None the less, the social costs of that restructuring across Europe will be great. The commission esitmates that there will be 150,000 job losses in the Community steel industry between 1983 and 1986.

  129
  There is no agreement at present among member states on the principles of the current proposals, on the details, or on the method or the level of financing. The Government will take note of any views that are expressed in this debate. Our objectives in the Council will be to ensure, first, that any further set of social measures is so framed as to provide the maximum benefit for the United Kingdom, and, secondly, to ensure that it is tied to tangible progress towards restructuring throughout the Community.
  I am sure that the House will welcome the support given by the Government for the European Coal and Steel Community's anti-crisis measures. We believe that the measures that the Community has taken have been necessary in the face of the unprecedented and great difficulties that face our industry. We believe that they provide a basis for the restoration of a viable and competitive steel industry both in this country and in the rest of Europe. I commend the documents to the House.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister of State has made what I would describe as one of the most depressing speeches about the steel industry that I have heard for many years in the House. It was only towards the end of his speech that I realised that he was speaking for the United Kingdom Government and not for the European Community. He seemed to be apologising for, not supporting, all the measures that are envisaged in these three documents. He painted an alarming picture of the future of the steel industry in this country. I shall come back to that later in my remarks.
  As Eric Morley said in announcing the result of the Miss World competition on Thursday night last week, I shall deal with the documents in reverse order. The Minister of State dealt last with the document covering the social support measures. I shall deal with it first. The Opposition welcome it, though we hope that it never has to be used in this country, because it envisages a further 150,000 job losses in the European steel industry. Although the Minister was careful to say that he did not expect that many of those 150,000 job losses would occur in the United Kingdom steel industry, it was noticeable that he avoided saying how many of those job losses might take place in the United Kingdom. I am certain that the Department of Trade and Industry has done its calculations on the matter, and I am certain, too, that, had the Minister wished, he could given us tonight the expected further job losses in the United Kingdom steel industry.
  The Minister said nothing, for instance, about future prospects at Ravenscraig. I am led to understand that we shall have a statement this week about a tie-up between the Ravenscraig plant and the American steel industry. If the Minister has information to that effect in his possession—information that is vital to Ravenscraig and the British steel industry—he is under an obligation to give it to the House tonight. I warn him that any tie-up between the two would cost Ravenscraig about 2,000 jobs.
  Therefore, while the social support measures in the document are welcome, we hope that they will never be used in Britain, because we have made our fair share of cuts in output, production, targets and manpower. It is something of an irony that the Minister should be bringing the document at all to the House, when he knows as well as we do that next year the British Steel Corporation will bring to an end British Steel Industries, the company that
  130
  was set up to create new industry in Sheffield, South Wales, Scotland and the various steel areas where the steel capacity—to use the Minister's language—was taken out.
  BSI was established with the object of creating new jobs, yet in this document we have an important extension of the social support system, which I was surprised the Minister did not mention. That extension will apply in steel areas where steel workers take up other employment that has been created for them or they have been able to obtain. Under this provision the Commission will make up the difference between their earnings had they remained in the steel industry, and their earnings in their new jobs. Our view of the document, therefore, is that it is to be welcomed in the hope that it will not be used; or, as Burns would have said:
  "I forward cast my ee on prospects dreer,
  Forward though I cannot see I guess and fear."
  The Minister did not exactly display confidence that there will be no further substantial job losses in the British steel industry as a result of the documents before the House.
  The second document, No. 6450/83, is a factual account of the applications for aid that have been made during the period under review and the way in which they have been disposed of by the Community. Some important statements appear in that document. For example, we are told that there must be a further reduction in capacity in the European steel industry of about 35 million tonnes.
  There is a discrepancy between that document and the third, No. 6375/83, in projecting the future of the industry to 1985. The third document says that by 1985 there will be over-capacity of 48 million tonnes, whereas the second document refers to a reduction of 35 million tonnes. In either event, a worrying picture is presented. In other words, against a background of continual reductions in capacity and quotas, there must be a further reduction of at least 35 million tonnes. The Minister rightly said that at the June meeting it was agreed that the United Kingdom's share of that reduction would be about 500,000 tonnes, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said earlier, some countries, particularly Germany and Italy, have not complied with their quota allocations. As my hon. Friend rightly said, Germany was fined for not complying with the quotas, but has even failed to pay the fine.
  It was noticeable that when my hon. Friend asked questions about Germany and Italy the answers he received were about Belgium, France and Luxembourg. The reason is that the Minister of State knows that even the new quotas that have been allocated to Germany and Italy will be ignored. When we discuss the recommendations arising from the documents, the Minister of State will have to admit to the House that the new quotas allocated to Germany and Italy have been ignored. There is even a possibility that the hon. Gentleman will ask the House to accept a further reduction in British steel capacity.
  When I first came to the House in 1971, the quota output of the British Steel Corporation was 42 million tonnes. I remember the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974 reducing that figure to 38 million tonnes. I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member in the House at that time foresaw the day when we would be discussing a reduction in capacity to 11 million tonnes. How any industrial nation can sustain an industrial economy based on a steel industry that has an output target of only 11

  131
  million tonnes is well beyond me. I do not believe that any trading nation can base its economy on a steel industry that has an output target of only 11 million tonnes.
  Document No. 6374/83 says:
  "The additional capacity reductions should in the Commission's view be made principally by undertakings which require aid … registering the heaviest losses and receiving the most State aid."
  That is alarming. Despite what the Minister of State said about the British Steel Corporation, when Mr. MacGregor left the chairmanship of the board of BSC it was incurring heavier losses than when he became chairman.
  Mr. John Prescott: It was his wages.
  Mr. Ewing: I am not sure about that. Whatever the contributory factor, the losses of BSC under the chairmanship of Mr. MacGregor were greater when he left that position than when he came to it. I make that point, not for pleasure, but to bring home to the House the reality of the statement that those countries that are having to support the steel industry to the greatest extent through aid will have to bear the heaviest cost in output. They will have to stand the heaviest job reductions. The Minister of State did not address himself to that issue.
  I accept that these are discussion documents, and that is why the Opposition will not seek to divide the House, but I must warn the Minister of State that if the Government seek to implement these indications—they are not decisions—in relation to the British steel industry he will have a terrible fight on his hands. The Opposition will not concede the picture that is painted for the British steel industry in the EC documents.
  The Minister of State started with the document that projects the future of the steel industry in Europe to 1985. This is an alarming picture. We have seen the United Kingdom bear the brunt of the output reductions that have been brought about in EC countries. The United Kingdom's steel industry has borne the heaviest manpower losses. We have borne the almost intolerable losses imposed by the EC.
  Output in the United Kingdom has decreased more than in any other EC country because of the impositions of the EC and, to a greater extent, the Government's economic policy. It is time that the United Kingdom Government stood up for their steel industry. We should no longer give in to the EC.
  The EC talks about the need to introduce new criteria. We are not talking about continuing with restructuring, as the Minister says. Those are fine words. Basically, they mean that more men are losing their jobs and more families are being savaged because of Government decisions. In working men's language, a loss of capacity means closing factories and throwing men on the dole. We do not want fancy and flowery phrases to be used, because the steel workers know what all this means.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Nonsense.
  Mr. Ewing: It is not nonsense. Any one who does not understand the feelings of steel workers when they are made redundant or thrown on the dole should see some of them. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that it is nonsense to suggest that steel workers have been and will
  132
  continue to be made redundant. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been since the early 1970s if that is his contention.
  Mr. Fallon: I was only seeking to suggest that the redundancies are occurring not just among steel workers but in companies in my constituency which continues to be affected by the imposition of the current quota on prices in the Community. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to imply that we should consider only redundancies, as these are the primary result of the steel regime. There are many other secondary effects. Many companies in my constituency would welcome a relaxation of the regime and an end to the quotas.
  The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear me say that I agree wih 75 per cent. of what he said. However, we are discussing the steel industry. I should be the first to admit the knock-on effects of redundancies in the steel industry, because I have seen them in my and other constituencies. I had the impression that when the hon. Gentleman was interrupting me from a sedentary position he was saying that it was nonsense to talk about redundancies. There is no shadow of a doubt that there have been serious effects.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) intervened during last Thursday's coal debate. Although I cannot quote him verbatim from Hansard, he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the shadow spokesman for energy, that the problem with the coal industry was that it did not produce metalliferous coking coal and anthracite. That was the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard, especially as it comes from someone from the south-west coal region which normally produces a high proportion of these elements. We cannot meet the demand for these minerals in this country. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman knows less about steel than about coal—and that is pretty abysmal.
  Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend must accept that one of his functions in the House is to educate Conservative Members about the effects of Britain's decline as an industrial nation, especially in relation to coal and steel. My hon. Friend does the House a service when he intervenes to fulfil that role.
  On the new policy to be introduced between now and 1985 to restructure the steel industry in Europe, the Minister said nothing about the points made on page 3 of document 6450/83, which states:
  "A new policy must be established around these economic references: firstly by the companies which must have the strength of purpose to bring about the convergence of strategies, towards an adjustment to real demand"——
  and this is important——
  "—by governments, whose intervention must be in support of the restructuring effort, as they cannot afford to pour cash into supporting a fundamental structural inefficiency."
  The Minister said nothing about that new condition.
  Is the Minister satisfied that the fundamental restructuring of the British steel industry is now complete, in both the public and private sectors? Labour Members have just as much interest in sustaining the private sector, because the people whom we represent work in that sector as well as in the public sector. We are not in the business of playing off one sector against the other, but of trying to preserve a viable steel industry in this country. Is the Minister satisfied that the restructuring that has been going

  133
  on in both sectors of the industry for the past nine or 10 years is now complete? If he says that it is not complete and that there is a long way to go, the criterion that I have mentioned immediately applies.
  The document then refers to
  "focussing all the instruments of Community cohesion (crisis measures, aid code, financing, commercial policy, regional and social measures) more closely on objectives better adapted to the needs of the present situation."
  The present situation is depressing. The Labour party's policies, however, are designed to achieve not that depressing present but a far brighter and expanding future in which the United Kingdom steel industry will play a very important role. That is why I have said that no industrial nation can hope to survive with a steel industry for which the output target is a mere 11 million tonnes.
  There has also been no mention so far of the final new policy
  "by the governments and the Community to implement reconversion plans which are indispensible for employment and regional development."
  How does the Minister envisage that being implemented in this country? The covering note from the Department makes it clear that the Department and therefore the Government are committed fully to support the document. How does the Minister envisage the implementation of that new policy in terms not only of the new criteria but of the effects that will flow from implementation of the rather stricter and far more closely drawn criteria contained in these documents?
  I have said that the Opposition do not intend to divide the House. I emphasise that that must not be taken to mean that we agree with the documents. The Minister made a surprising and alarming speech. It appears that he was setting the scene for more reductions in capacity and, therefore, more job losses in the British steel industry. I shall be glad to get the Minister on the record saying that there will be no such reductions. However, that was not the import of his speech. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: Listening to 25 minutes of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) giving a virtuoso performance of repetitive arguments which have no doubt been made in the House many times, I wondered where he has been in the past few years. What has happened to the steel industry here is not unique to Britain. The same has happened throughout Europe, America and the rest of the industrialised world. When the hon. Gentleman talks of the British steel industry without having regard to that, there can never be a fair presentation of the problem.
  Steel making has drifted to countries with low labour costs. Europe has been slow to adapt to new production techniques and there has been a world recession. The result has been overcapacity. Production of steel in Europe is now at 1966 levels. It would be idle to suppose that steel production in Britain in 1979 was efficient, productive and successful. Steel making has been inefficient throughout Europe. One of the largest problems facing Europe recently has been the restructuring of the steel industry. It has involved substantial cuts in capacity, plant modernisation and job losses.
  Britain's contribution to cuts has amounted to about 19·7 per cent., or 4·2 million tonnes. That has been part
  134
  of the European restructuring plan. In my constituency, 11,000 men have been made redundant since 1979, the majority since 1981.
  Mr. Rogers: And the hon. Gentleman does not care.
  Mr. Hickmet: It is utterly ridiculous and disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman to say that, especially when such redundancies have had a knock-on effect on so many other industries. The Opposition seem to think that they have a monopoly on compassion as well as on ideology. They are wrong.
  Despite what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) may think about my feelings, the substantial number of redundancies in my constituency have caused grave concern not only to my constituents but to politicians in Westminster. We have seen the closure of Normanby Park steelworks, one of the most important works within the British Steel Corporation, and, under the chairmanship of Mr. MacGregor, the BSC work force was reduced by between 80,000 and 90,000.
  The EC's strategy to achieve viability in steel industries by 1985 will mean, according to the documents before us, a further 150,000 job losses by that date and a cut in capacity of 30 million to 35 million tonnes in addition to the 26·7 million tonnes agreed by the Commission on 29 June.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to note that it cannot be argued that our continental partners have experienced anything like the level of cutbacks that have taken place in Britain. Luxembourg, Belgium and France have made substantial efforts, but Italy has refused to do anything but increase its steel output. At the June meeting, the Commission recognised this country's contribution and, in pursuance of the Elsinore agreement of November 1982, a cut in capacity of 5·9 million tonnes was imposed on Italy, with further large cuts being imposed on West Germany. A minimal cut, of 600,000 tonnes, was imposed on this country.
  It is essential that the Government and the Commission hold the Italians and the Germans to the Commission's June decision on capacity and its decision in July on quotas. The BSC has completed 85 per cent. of the restructuring required by the Commission, but the Germans and the Italians have failed to match anything like that programme. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall find it very difficult to support proposals that involve significant cutbacks in any of this country's five major integrated steel plants. I was glad that the Secretary of State made it clear at the June meeting that the Government's commitment to those plants would remain firm and that he would not be prepared to see any of them closed.
  Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should understand that the Secretary of State's commitment to retain the five integrated steel plants was made against the background of a debate in the House during the previous Parliament, when hon. Members on both sides of the House made it abundantly clear to the Government—who were a long way down the road towards shedding Ravenscraig, one of the five integrated plants—that they would not accept the closure of any of those plants.
  That is the importance of these debates.
  I am delighted with the hon. Gentleman's point of view. We can impress upon the Minister the fact that he

  135
  will not get away with going to Europe and agreeing with everything that they impose upon the steel industry in this country.
  Mr. Hickmet: I hear what the hon. Member for Falkirk, East says. By all accounts, the then Secretary of State's performance in Europe in defence of the five major integrated steel plants, was remarkable for its success and robustness. I understand from my meetings with the management of BSC—I speak with all respect to the present Secretary of State—that it was pleased with the performance of the then Secretary of State and had a great deal of faith in his commitment.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the fact that the proposed quotas are based on existing production levels and that West Germany and Italy have not even complied with the previous quotas? That is why they are in difficulties. The platform for the future is based on an illegal position obtaining in West Germany and Italy. The Minister should not be protecting the present position but acquiring recompense for the past.
  Mr. Hickmet: I have made my views clear about the performance of West Germany and Italy.
  Although we were successful in achieving small quota increases for the United Kingdom in July, such quotas are nonsensical if they are ignored by other countries or if manufacturers arrange for finished steel products to be kicked or knocked about with hammers so that they can say that such steel products do not count against the quota arrangements.
  The refusal by West Germany to restructure—I note the sanguine confidence expressed by the Minister about West Germany's intentions, although press reports lead me to believe that such confidence may be optimistic—the refusal by the Italians to cut capacity, the over-estimate on consumption in Europe, the dumping of steel by Spain, the closure of the United States market to many of our specialised steel products and the 12·5 per cent. import penetration into the EC by countries outside that trading arrangement are factors that depress steel prices. The depression of steel prices across the whole range of products, which has occurred since June, should be causing not only the Minister but the Secretary of State great concern. The Government must press for a reduction of about 5 per cent. to 7 per cent. of steel imports into Europe. They should insist that the Italians and the West Germans abide by agreements on capacity and quotas reached by the Commission. The United States market should be opened further to our specialised finished products, or else adequate compensation should be paid by the United States under the GATT agreement.
  Production quotas within the EC should be observed. It goes without saying that any cuts that might occur in my constituency, which contains one of the five integrated steelworks, would be viewed with grave alarm and anxiety. Quite frankly, I would be unable to support such a proposal.
  The social policies identified in the documents are of no use if there are no jobs or industries in the region.
  The Welsh and the Scots have one day in 20 in this Chamber. Numerous Ministers are Welsh or Scottish, or claim to have Scottish or Welsh connections, but as far as I am aware there are none that proclaim their Humberside
  136
  connections. I asked for statistics on the level of investment from the European steel fund, the European regional development fund and the British steel industry, but received one of those dusty answers that senior colleagues told me that I would have to get used to. It said that the cost of assembling such information was prohibitive, and was available if, in effect, I would only go to some library month after month, looking it all up.
  I know that the level of investment from those funds in my constituency does not compare with that in Corby, or the places in Scotland and Wales that we hear about for hour after hour. If there are any workshy Ministers in the Department, perhaps the Minister will encourage them to delve into the figures, so that I can have them. There should be adequate investment in Humberside. If my hon. Friend sees any Japanese people in the near future, he might mention Humberside to them.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: I do not know why I have been given an opportunity to speak so early in the debate. It may be due to the letter that I sent to your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Friday, or to the fact that Martin Kettle, in The Sunday Times, referred to new Members of Parliament who had not made their maiden speeches. The Sunday Times referred to me as a tight-lipped Member of Parliament. I must be one of the select few to be described in that way. I hope that that reporter will note the actions rather than the rhetoric. However, I should be pleased to show him round my constituency.
  I thank the voters of Sheffield, Central for having given me the privilege to represent them in the House. Sheffield, Central is an area that I know well, as I was born and educated there, and also worked in the constituency. I obtained my first job at the age of 15 as an apprentice engineer in the steel works, where I continued to be employed until being elected to the European Parliament in 1979.
  On behalf of the old Sheffield, Park constituency, I should like to thank Fred Mulley, who served the constituency for about 30 years. He served the House in many capacities and gave loyal service to the Labour party for many years. Indeed, he was chairman of the party for two years. I wish him well, and a long and happy retirement.
  I thank the staff of the House and other Opposition Members for the valuable information that they have given to me. The pleasant manner of the staff, particularly in the Library—which is open for many hours—is highly commendable. There are some people from the Socialist group in the European Parliament in the Gallery tonight. If some of the staff of the House saw the conditions of service and remuneration offered at the European Parliament, they might become a little discontented.
  As the name implies, Sheffield, Central is in the centre of Sheffield. Like many industrial centres, Sheffield is experiencing great hardship, with high levels of unemployment. In some areas the figure is as high as 30 per cent. That information is based on the 1981 census. Many of those people worked in Sheffield's steel industry. Of the 17 worst districts in Sheffield, where unemployment was recorded as being more than 30 per cent., 16 are in the Sheffield, Central constituency. However, those are

  137
  the 1981 figures. Calculations now show unemployment to be well over 40 per cent. and, indeed, as high as 60 per cent. in some areas.
  Of the 5,900 school leavers in Sheffield this year, only 800 have full-time jobs. Over 10,000 young people in the city of Sheffield have never had a real job.
  I am speaking on behalf of a steel city. The principles and bases on which these documents have been presented, and which the Minister has explained, if adopted by the Government, will make the figures in Sheffield considerably worse in the coming years.
  One area has not been mentioned. Do the figures for tonnages that the Minister mentioned include Phoenix 2? We believe that an announcement will be made within the next few days. We also believe that Phoenix 2 will mean the closure of Hadfields, one of the major steel companies in Sheffield, with 800 redundancies. The workers in those factories have not been consulted on how their industry should develop. The management has been asked to sign documents on secrecy so that the announcement is not leaked to the shop floor. These redundancies will be in addition to the 21,000 people in Sheffield who have been made redundant since 1979. Many thousands are on short time working.
  The Government have gone out of their way to reduce the steel industry to ashes so that they can start resurrecting the Phoenix. The Government have gone like lambs to the slaughter to reorganise the steel industry at the dictates of the Common Market.
  I shall put that into context. We have not just lost the biggest slice of production capacity; we have borne more than 45 per cent. of the job losses sustained by the Common Market steel industry. We are the only major producer country within the EC to have reduced capacity between 1973 and 1982. West Germany has increased its capacity by 15 per cent., Italy by 41 per cent., France by 5 per cent., Belgium by 10 per cent., but the United Kingdom is minus 16 per cent. It is a tragedy for our steel industry. From being second in the league in 1972, we became fourth in 1982.
  Conservative Members seem to put a great deal of emphasis on state subsidy, and the Minister has referred to it. State involvement in steel production does not reveal the whole of the Government's interest. If account is taken of state contribution to fuel charges, freight charges, unemployment, short-time working payments, and assistance to research and development, public support for the British Steel Corporation amounts to £11 per tonne compared with the average figure for the EC of £15 per tonne, for West Germany £15, France £18 and Belgium £19.
  It is against that historical background of about 10 years that we are asked to follow the principles embodied in the state aid document and also the evaluation of the steel industry by the EC. A collapse of EUROFER has clearly been spelt out in the press over the past two or three weeks. It is the main organ upon which the Commission was relying to obtain a consensus in the industry. It is absurd for the Minister to say that he will put pressure on the Germans and the Italians when the very instrument by which that pressure was to be brought is failing in front of our eyes.
  We are now told that we are to bear a further reduction of 500,000 tonnes. Is the reduction in capacity under
  138
  Phoenix 2 included in those figures, or will another 90,000 tonnes of capacity be taken out of United Kingdom engineering steels at the request of the EC?
  The Government's attitude in the negotiations across the English Channel has been one of sheer capitulation for five years. It has left our industry in a sorry state. The ex-chairman of Hadfields, in a book on the public sector published two or three weeks ago, said that the United Kingdom should get out of bulk steel making. If one continues to reduce capacity much below 11 million ingot tonnes, the question mark over the industry rears its head.
  Some 90 per cent. of special steels are produced in Rotherham and Sheffield. That is an important sector of the steel industry. It supplies steel for high technology industries such as aerospace and energy. Import penetration was less than 12 per cent. in 1972, but from 1972 to the early 1980s it ranged from 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. Those figures are confirmed by the Commission. That has been the level of penetration in special steels, such as high speed steel, tool steel and stainless steel.
  When people talk about the development of new technology and its application, they should look seriously at the continuation of a fully developed special steels sector. The special steels sector of Sheffield made sure that the RB211 got into the air. It produced the quality of steel that would withstand the heat exchanges and stresses that the engine placed on it. Such development is now being lost not only in Sheffield but in the United Kingdom. For people to say that we can run down the bulk steel and low alloy side of the industry and keep the special steels sector going is nonsense. Many people in the steel industry believe that, too.
  The United States has now placed import controls on the special steels sector. The private sector alone is exporting 10 per cent. of its production to the United States. The cost to BSC, through the imposition of a 20 per cent. duty, will be over £100 million. What restraints has the EC brought under GAIT? Very few. There is a danger that in the negotiations global imports and exports will be considered and that special steels may be put into that equation not as special steels, but as an amount of money. That will be extremely damaging.
  I ask the Government to consider seriously the basis of the Commission's documents. The Minister has already had discussions. The documents do not give the answer. Looking at the long-term trends of the British steel industry, one sees no answer. In 1981, the Minister of State said:
  "The phasing out of aids and the elimination of excess and uncompetitive capacity can be done only on the basis of multilateral agreement if the burden of the necessary restructuring is to be fairly shared."—[Official Report, 28 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 1103.]
  Is the basis for the figures for the past 10 years a fair one on which to take a further cut of 500,000 tonnes? It will inevitably mean further redundacies for steel workers in the private and public sectors.
  11.55 pm
  Sir John Osborn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on his maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him speak again on steel and other subjects. I know that he has particular knowledge of the steel industry.
  During a number of elections the hon. Gentleman chaired factory gate meetings when I accompanied

  139
  Conservative candidates for the Sheffield, Brightside constituency. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor caused me, during my first election campaign, to reveal that I was a budding steel baron.
  The devastation that has hit Sheffield has hit management and shop floor alike. Hon. Members who have heard me speak before will know the extent to which Sheffield has suffered from the events of recent years.
  The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the European scene has long been respected by the industry—and so it should, as he stepped into my shoes as the Sheffield Member of the European Parliament. When I was a MEP I had to deal with Labour Ministers.
  In the few minutes left to me, I shall refer not only to Sheffield but to the changes in the demand for steel in Europe and the work of the Council of Europe in connection with the OECD steel committee, which had to look wider than the EC. One aspect of that is that in the last OECD debate, to which I referred earlier this evening in another debate, it was noted that steel expansion took place in Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and other Third world countries. In the context of this debate, that is bad news for Britain, but in the context of our earlier debate it is welcome news.
  I welcome the Government's support in the Council of Ministers for the ECSC steel anti-crisis measures. But I am worried about discussing documents dated as far back as April 1983 when the scene since then has changed quickly. Once again, the House has been in danger of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Earlier this month there was a statement by Commissioner Davignon outlining a number of measures that will come into operation on 1 December. A tragic reality, which justifies his statement, is that the special high speed steel and alloy steel industries in Sheffield have been decimated. Even the BSC activities have been hit. Because 90 per cent. of special steel comes from Sheffield, it has been especially hard hit.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry knows Sheffield. I hope that he will pay a return visit there for many reasons—not least the troubles there and the cost of energy. The increases in the cost of gas and electricity have caused considerable consternation to those surviving in Sheffield. However, it is reassuring that Ian MacGregor—one-time head of BSC—is now poacher turned gamekeeper. He knows that the high cost of coal, often caused by keeping open uneconomic pits, has an impact on the cost of electricity. The fact that 84 per cent. of electricity comes from coal-fired stations is one of several reasons for the damage caused to Sheffield and its electric arc steelmaking.
  Two activities took place in October. There was a meeting in Japan of the International Iron and Steel Institute——
  Mr. Bill Michie: Does the hon. Gentleman recall two or three meetings with the economic development committee in Sheffield town hall, where we finally convinced him—or at least he conceded—that the corporation's problems with energy prices were not so much the fault of the British mining industry, but of the hidden subsidies paid in the rest of the Community?
  Sir John Osborn: That matter has been discussed in the House many times, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for
  140
  drawing it to my attention. Sheffield's Members of Parliament have had frequent committee meetings with the city council about that city's plight.
  The International Iron and Steel Institute provides a forum for steel competitors to meet, and to compare production costs, techniques and even marketing arrangements. Has the Minister had a report of this conference?
  A year ago I instigated a debate in the Council of Europe which gave rise to a report by Mr. Pignion, a Member from the north of France, on the plight of the European steel industry. The subsequent debate on this report early in October this year was attended by Japanese Members of Parliament, representatives of the American Congress and Members of Parliament from Canada and Australia. What impressed me in that debate was the fact that, even in Australia, the recession had hit a company such as Broken Hill Pty., which had natural advantages over its European competitors.
  The preparatary work for the debate was carried out by the steel committee of OECD. In a recession, an industry that is contracting must have price stability. That is essential in a buyers' market such as was the case in 1930, and I hope that it will cover steels made in Sheffield. The Sheffield steel industry has taken more than its fair share of closures, and I hope that the Minister will now stand up for Sheffield. However, reviewing the problem in its wider context, it must be recognised that the United Kingdom has suffered a 59 per cent. reduction in steel manpower during the past 10 years, which is rather more than France, with 36 per cent., and Belgium, with 30 per cent. Italy increased employment during that period by about 5 per cent., and I reiterate the comments that have already been made about that.
  In countries outside the EC, capacity in Europe has been cut by only 0·8 million tonnes, and Spain has increased capacity. That must be balanced with the self-sufficiency of other countries, but the industry's plea is that high alloy steels should be brought within article 60 of the European Coal and Steel Act. Originally those steels were made by old methods and not to local, let alone international, standards. Now worldwide standards have been set, and alloy steels are produced alongside bulk steels in the same factory. The industry hopes that price stability can be extended to other grades of steel.
  I hope that the Minister will elaborate on the emergency measures announced the week before last by Commissioner Davignon. What impact will they have on Sheffield, which has already been hard hit and which has taken its fair share?
  12.4 am
  Mr. Norman Lamont: My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on his good, strong and fighting maiden speech. It was also an informed speech. Plainly, he knows the steel industry backwards. He will not be surprised if I do not agree with everything that he said. Nevertheless, it was an interesting speech, and we look forward to his contributions in future steel debates.
  I shall answer one or two of the points that were raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) has also established himself during his time in the House as a fighter for the steel industry and his constituency. It was a great pity that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), from a

  141
  sedentary position, made insulting and totally untrue remarks about him. They made me feel uncomfortable, because I know that my hon. Friend can be an awkward customer, and he was egged on considerably by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend asked about cutbacks in imports, and I can assure him that we are pressing for cutbacks in imports from third countries. That is the position that we are taking in the negotiations on the voluntary restraint agreements with third countries. My hon. Friend also asked about United States actions against special steels. He said that we should press for compensation and exemption for certain categories of special steels. That is exactly what we are doing.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked about the contradiction between the 35 million tonnes capacity reduction that the Community is proposing and the 50 million tonnes that has been identified as the excess capacity within the Community. The answer is that the Community does not propose to take out all the excess capacity. It recognises the argument for leaving a certain amount of excess capacity, because one cannot expect to run a steel industry at 100 per cent. capacity all the time.
  I was somewhat surprised by parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East. He said that we were to have a statement on Ravenscraig this week in the House. That is news to me. No proposition on a slab deal has yet been put to the Government. Mr. Haslam is still considering the matter, and if he has proposals to put to us, no doubt he will do so in due course. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information from. At times I wondered whether he was taking part in a different debate about a different steel industry. He put forward the fantastic notion that my speech was intended to pave the way for further reductions in capacity and cuts in this country. I thought—and I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree with me—that the tenor of my speech was exactly the opposite. I thought that the period of cutbacks was past. It is not our intention to have further cutbacks. Of course, I cannot give guarantees. We always have to struggle to be competitive, and we are always chasing a moving target. I made it clear that we take the view that other countries should now take the burden of restructuring. I said that two or three times.
  The hon. Gentleman also seemed to be under the misapprehension that Mr. Ian MacGregor had left the British Steel Corporation with larger losses than when he took over. May I point out that when he took over the
  142
  losses were nearly £700 million, and that when he left in August 1983 they were £386 million. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that my speech was a depressing speech. I know that he is a magician and a rainmaker, but does he think that it is all the fault of the Tories that steel production has slumped by 38 per cent. in the United States to the lowest level since 1938? That is all our fault, is it? Are the Tories responsible for everything, including the fact that production throughout the Community is down by about 12 per cent. Does the hon. Member think that it is just a question of will-power and determination, of producing more steel regardless of whom one is selling it to? The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends live in a fantasy world.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6374/83, Fourth Report on the application of the rules for aids to the steel industry, 6450/83, General Objectives for Steel 1985 and 6375/83, Proposal for a Council Decision relating to a contribution to the European Coal and Steel Community out of the General Budget of the Communities; and welcomes the Government's support given in the Council of Ministers for the ECSC Steel Anti-Crisis Measures.

  European Community (Steel)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

      HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) (Scotland) Order 1983, dated 17th October 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
      Question agreed to.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the draft Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
      Question agreed to.

  Nationality Fees (Cost)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  12.10 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I appreciate this opportunity to raise the subject of the cost of nationality fees. They are extortionate, they were denounced unanimously by the Home Affairs Committee as long ago as 4 May 1983, and they have not thereafter been dealt with by the Government. I denounce the profit, estimated at £6·4 million, to be made in 1982·83. The Government are living off the immoral earnings of an evil system that was unanimously condemned by the Home Affairs Committee, and, if the Minister is not ashamed of the system over which he presides, he should be.
  There is before the House a motion that has already been signed by 154 Opposition hon. Members, and I have another 34 signatures waiting to be added to it. It states:
  "That this House recognises the disgraceful profit made by the Government from fees for British citizenship; and calls for their immediate reduction in line with the Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1982–83."
  That motion has drawn the same response as that received by the report of the Home Affairs Committee—total silence in the face of total condemnation by hon. Members.
  As the grandson of four immigrants, as an ex-service man and as a proud citizen of this country, I in no way undervalue the supreme importance of British citizenship. Following my late father in the service of the people of Leicester, West, I would never underestimate the value of that citizenship. But our nationality is not a saleable commodity. It is not, to use the words of the Home Affairs Committee, akin to a television licence. It is not a product to be marketed for profit. If the Minister does not recognise that, he should be ashamed of himself.
  I am pleased to tell the House that the Bishop of Leicester has joined me in denouncing the system. It is a system that is morally wrong and should be changed immediately. It applies most to those citizens who come from other lands, who live here and now wish to exercise their right to become British citizens. It applies to the Asians of Leicester; to brown and to black people. It also applies to others, including a constituent of mine who wishes not to be named but about whom I have written to the Minister, a Scandinavian and professional person, who, as a matter of principle, is not prepared to pay on a profit basis for the naturalisation of her daughter who is a student and is not able to pay for herself.
  The Home Office is responsible for this wicked system, and the Minister, who is known as a good and compassionate man, presides over it. Does he not consider that the time has come to change that system? If he cannot induce the Government to make that change, he should resign.
  The report from the Home Affairs Committee is dated 4 May 1983. Nothing has happened since then. Time may not matter in the Home Office, but it does matter to people who are affected. It matters to constituents of mine whose job applications have been frustrated because they are unable to get passports and to travel. It is a serious problem to people like a constituent of mine who is desperate to have the matter put in order so that he may do his work, and to whom the Home Office wrote saying:
  144
  "From time to time the number of applications for citizenship to be considered reaches levels which exceed the capacity of the staff available to process them. Delays then arise which are not the fault of the staff and which the Home Office much regrets."
  I accept that these delays are not the fault of the staff. I pay tribute to the work done by the staff in difficult circumstances and in accordance with rules that they have had thrust upon them. The Minister, who is a compassionate man, is responsible for those rules. If he is not ashamed of those rules, then he should be.
  I am not able to pay the same tribute to those who administer the rules in ports and places where people come into this country. I refer to immigration officers. Hon. Members who, like me, have many immigrants among their constituents, will testify to the constant and high level of complaints that are made about the treatment of visitors from overseas, especially those who are brown or black. It is all part of the system over which the Minister—a compassionate man—presides. If he is not ashamed of the system, he should be; and if he cannot get the system changed, he should resign.
  To the Minister and to his Department, the question of time may not be important, but the entitlement regulations run out at the end of 1987. As the Select Committee on Home Affairs pointed out, one of the reasons why there have been so many applications so soon has been that people fear that they will lose their rights. Time does matter, if not for the Home Office, then for others. There is no excuse for the delay from May until now, or for the Minister's refusal to set a date when he will respond. If he does not respond tonight, there will be no grounds for his refusal to honour the obligations that his high office places upon him. If as a compassionate man he will not now state his intentions, he should be ashamed of himself and his conduct of the office he holds.
  I heard a story about the Home Office. Some one asked one of the Ministers what is the English for "mañana". The Minister replied, "In the Home Office, we have no word which conveys quite that sense of urgency." The Home Office may not feel that these matters are urgent, but for those who are affected they are of great and immediate concern.
  Unfortunately, immigration and nationality are tied up with the system that extends to the way in which people coming here are treated. I refer in particular to a matter that I have drawn to the attention of the Minister—the case of Mrs. Monghiben V. Chavda, who came to this country as a lawful visitor to see her family and was required to sign a form that in my view was completely unlawful. Having signed it, she was required to place her thumb print on it. That was another indignity for a person who came here to visit her relations. Her son was required to sign a form saying that he was his mother's sponsor and that he would not apply for any extension of stay on her behalf for any purpose. This is an unlawful but typical letter. When I complained about it, the Minister, who is a compassionate man, replied saying that it was a mistake, that it should not have been done, and that
  "the wording used … could be construed as an attempt to deny the passenger her lawful rights by administrative means. This clearly was not the intention but I shall take steps to see that such a form of words is not used in future."
  I asked the Minister whether this was an isolated case. The answer came back that he did not know of any others, but he would not know, because apparently the immigration officers decide for themselves what forms they will use. If that is correct, it is a wicked and a bad

  145
  system. If that is incorrect, the Minister owes another apology to the House on behalf of the lawful, decent, dignified and honourable visitors who are treated in such an inappropriate and wicked manner, of which the Minister, who is a compassionate and a kindly man, must be ashamed. If he is not, he certainly should be.
  There are many other examples of this type of shameful behaviour. There are complaints in the Home Office concerning those who are entitled to British nationality and who are ready to pay the necessary fees—British passport holders who have been waiting to come to this country for as long as seven years. Relatives of my constituents are divided from their families in a way that would be denounced if this system were applied by any other land. I have twice visited a Mr. Acharya in India, who has waited seven years, but still does not know when he will be permitted into this country, as he is entitled.
  This is not a matter of allowing more people into Britain or of extending the right of immigration to new people. It is simply a question of allowing in people who are entitled to be here. Perhaps time does not matter in the Home Office. It matters to people like Mr. Acharya and to their families. If the Minister who is a compassionate man, cannot see that, he should.
  A new aberration has been found. Apparently, it is now necessary for people with Asian names to produce a passport if they are to receive their rights from the DHSS. I have a form dated 7 November which is addressed to an Asian constituent in Leicester which states:
  "please take this letter together with your passport to your local Social Security office".
  The time has come when we ought to get rid of these wicked distinctions between people who are entitled to rights, between those who may be of different colour, background or ethnic origin. The Home Office and the Minister who is in charge of communal relations should understand the awful damage that is being caused to good relations by the sort of evils that I have drawn to the attention of the House and the Minister.
  I ask the Minister to consider these matters with great care and with that compassion for which he is known. I hope that if I am right, he will say so. I ask him to announce that the Government will cease to make a profit from nationality fees, which are not a commodity like television licences, and that he will make good the errors and omissions of the system over which he presides and of which, I am sure—whether or not he says so tonight—he must be deeply ashamed.
  12.23 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for giving me an opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate, for applying for this debate and for sponsoring the early-day motion. I support all that he has said tonight, and therefore I shall limit my remarks as much as I can.
  The Labour party remains firmly committed to the repeal of the British Nationality Act and the Immigration Act 1971. We look forward to the earliest opportunity for a Labour Government to repeal those pieces of repugnant legislation. I support all that my hon. and learned Friend has said about the recommendation by the Select Committee and share his total opposition to the excessive profits that are made from the fees. I urge the Minister to announce today that there will be substantial reductions in
  146
  the fees charged and that no fees at all will be charged to applicants receiving supplementary benefit or who are unemployed.
  I hope that the Minister will also announce that inquiries into applications for British citizenship will in future be conducted by Home Office staff. At present, detectives are employed for this purpose and thousands of hours of their time are taken up with inquiries of this kind. It would be far better if Home Office staff were employed to do this work, thus releasing the detectives to do the work on which they are best employed—inquiring into crime. The removal of the police from these duties would make a major contribution to improving race relations.
  I urge the Minister also to ensure that in future the fee is paid when the application is considered, rather than when it is made. Substantial sums are involved and he will appreciate the great difficulty and hardship that payment on submission of the application imposes on many people.
  I hope that the Minister will respond as generously as he can to the points that my hon. and learned Friend and I have raised today, because this is an urgent matter of great concern to the black and Asian communities in this country.
  12.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) have raised many matters which go far wider than the title of the debate. I do not think that either of them would seriously expect me to go so wide. I certainly have not the slightest intention of wasting the time of the House defending the British Nationality Act 1981. I do not think that anyone seriously believes that if this country suffered the misfortune of a Labour Government that Act would be repealed.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the fact that some months had elapsed since the Select Committee on Home Affairs published its report on nationality fees. I am sure that he will agree, however, that very important matters are raised and very important proposals are made in that report. It is far more important to get this right than to feel that we must have our response out by a specific date.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman recently asked a number of questions about the time taken to process applications. I remind the House that the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, having visited the immigration and nationality department at Croydon and seen what was involved in the processing of applications, came to the following conclusion:
  "we consider the procedures within B4 (that is, the Nationality Department) are satisfactory and not of themselves a cause of delay. We conclude that the staff of B4 are doing their best in difficult circumstances. The speed at which these procedures operate is governed by two factors: the level of applications and of staff'.
  Two sets of figures are worth bearing in mind, as they are highly relevant to the debate. There was an enormous increase in applications in 1982–83 over 1981–82–96,000 as compared with 66,300. In spite of the importance that the Government attach to reducing the size of the Civil Service, there has been a modest increase in the complement in the Immigration and Nationality Department from 269 to 283 in the past year. The average time to process an application when there is an entitlement to citizenship is now 13 months, and applications for

  147
  nationality by discretion are taking 21 months. That is the information that I gave to the hon. and learned Gentleman by way of an answer to a question the other day but I can amplify that information to some extent. The average time for entitlement registrations is 13 months but 50 per cent. of all such applications are completed within 10 months.
  I accept that the position is not satisfactory, but it has worsened in the past year, especially for entitlement applications, entirely because of the unprecedented influx of applications, all received within a few weeks immediately before the Nationality Act came into force on 1 January this year. I have given the figures for 1982–83, nearly a 50 per cent. increase over the previous year—and more than 50 per cent of those 96,000 applications were received in a few weeks in November and December 1982.
  As to fees, I gave an interim response to the report when I wrote on 28 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), who was then Chairman of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, and I sent a copy to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Let me revert for a moment to the so-called profit which the hon. and learned Gentleman eloquently denounced. The position is this. Total cash receipts in 1982–83 were £10·95 million. The cost of processing applications were £4·52 million. The difference of £6·43 million was made up of receipts from two sources—£3·79 million from fees paid following completion of work on applications received before April 1982 and £2·64 million from new applications received after 1 April 1982, work on which was largely uncompleted before 31 March 1983.
  There is no doubt how a manufacturing concern taking, say, two years to make a product and deciding in 1982 to change over from asking for payment on completion of work to payment in advance, would approach the matter. The firm certainly would not have said that payments of £3·79 million received in 1982–83 for work done in 1981–82 should be lumped with £7·16 million received on new orders not to be completed until the following year and that the profit for 1982–83 should be arrived at by setting those two sums against the manufacturing costs of 1982–83. Of course it would not have gone in for such nonsense. It is ridiculous to talk of that cash surplus as a profit.
  I shall now deal with some of the matters that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, although they are not relevant to the debate. He mentioned visitors. I do not doubt for a moment that, if someone travels half way round the world and arrives at London airport at 7 am dead tired, he or she will not be pleased at the prospect of being questioned by anyone. I inquire with the greatest care into allegations of discourtesy that are made against our immigration officers. I should be extremely displeased if such discourtesy was proved. However, it must be
  148
  recognised that people do not like to be questioned, even though there is abundant justification for the questioning. It is an inseparable part of immigration control that people will be questioned when they arrive dead tired at London airport at 6 am.
  The hon. and learned Member mentioned a person being asked to sign an undertaking that she would not appeal against a decision on her application for an extension of stay. I replied to the hon. and learned Member that I thought that it was wrong to ask for such an undertaking. However, we must not get confused. The immigration officer must be satisfied that a person is a genuine visitor and if an officer is in doubt about whether a person will leave the country at the end of the period for which he says that he wants to stay, I see nothing wrong in that officer putting the matter to the test by asking the person, "Will you sign an undertaking that you will leave at the end of the period?"
  The hon. and learned Member also went well wide of the subject of the debate when he raised rights of entitlement to nationality. He said that those rights run out at the end of 1987. I hope that all those who are interested in the matter will make it clear that people have the right to apply for registration until the end of 1987 and that the time taken to process an application has no effect on that. Anyone who puts in an application before the end of 1987 will qualify under the Act.
  I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's kind words about me, but the fierce strictures in the rest of his speech were unwarranted and I should not allow the impression to remain that the immigration and nationality department has behaved badly. It has had to cope with an unprecedented rush of applications and, in the circumstances, it has coped well.
  Mr. Janner: When will the Minister respond to the unanimous demand of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in May that nationality fees should be reduced so that they do not show a profit to the Government?
  Mr. Waddington: I shall respond as soon as possible, but, as I said earlier, these are serious matters. Many important proposals were made by the Committee and I should be doing no service to the House or to those who wish to apply for nationality if I were rushed into making a decision.
  We have set in train work on producing a new accounting system that will command public confidence. That is what really matters. I had hoped that we would reply to the Select Committee before Christmas, but no one should be too dismayed if it takes even longer. The important thing is to get it right. I do not expect that that reply will please everybody, but I hope that it will receive wide acceptance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Donald Donner
  Donald Donner
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Loan Projects
  Loan Projects
THE ARTS
  Elgin Marbles
  Elgin Marbles
  London Festival Ballet
  London Festival Ballet
  Experimental Art
  Experimental Art
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Arts Support
  Arts Support
  Arts Expenditure
  Arts Expenditure
  Regional Visits
  Regional Visits
  Library Association
  Library Association
  Regional Arts Associations
  Regional Arts Associations
  Bodies (Funding)
  Bodies (Funding)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Forces (Liaison)
  Police Forces (Liaison)
  London Borough of Newham
  London Borough of Newham
  Prisons (Hygiene)
  Prisons (Hygiene)
  Detained Persons (Photographing)
  Detained Persons (Photographing)
  Motoring Offences (Drugs)
  Motoring Offences (Drugs)
  Cable Television
  Cable Television
  Private Tenants (Harassment)
  Private Tenants (Harassment)
  Sexual Offences (Review)
  Sexual Offences (Review)
  Nuclear Defence (Protest Marches)
  Nuclear Defence (Protest Marches)
  Dorset (Police Establishment)
  Dorset (Police Establishment)
  Shooting Incident (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Shooting Incident (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Drugs Offences
  Drugs Offences
  Stop and Search Operations
  Stop and Search Operations
  Metropolitan Police (Report)
  Metropolitan Police (Report)
  Indictable Crimes (Humberside)
  Indictable Crimes (Humberside)
  Anti-cruise Demonstrations
  Anti-cruise Demonstrations
  Prisons
  Prisons
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Services Conduits)
  Roads (Services Conduits)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950
  Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  M1 (Leicestershire)
  M1 (Leicestershire)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  M5 (Design)
  M5 (Design)
  Heathrow and Gatwick (Signposts)
  Heathrow and Gatwick (Signposts)
  Roads
  Roads
ENERGY
  Redundancy Costs
  Redundancy Costs
  Petroleum Stocks (Amendment) Order
  Petroleum Stocks (Amendment) Order
  Coal Output (Statistics)
  Coal Output (Statistics)
  Standing Charges
  Standing Charges
  Coal Stockpiling
  Coal Stockpiling
PRIME MINISTER
  Assisted Area Status
  Assisted Area Status
  Heavy Water
  Heavy Water
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
DEFENCE
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Royal Arsenal Land
  Royal Arsenal Land
  Defence Intelligence Staff
  Defence Intelligence Staff
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Accounting Procedures
  Accounting Procedures
  Salisbury Plain
  Salisbury Plain
  Budget Increases
  Budget Increases
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Chilwell
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Chilwell
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  Departmental Management
  Departmental Management
  Departmental Contracts
  Departmental Contracts
WALES
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Housing Renovation Grants
  Housing Renovation Grants
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Civil Engineering Projects
  Civil Engineering Projects
  International Sporting Teams
  International Sporting Teams
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Health Expenditure
  Health Expenditure
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephone Answering Service
  Telephone Answering Service
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Grenada
  Grenada
  South Africa
  South Africa
ENVIRONMENT
  Council for British Archaeology
  Council for British Archaeology
  Rent Acts
  Rent Acts
  London Borough of Newham
  London Borough of Newham
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Assured Tenancies
  Assured Tenancies
  Welwyn Hatfield District Council (Staff Numbers)
  Welwyn Hatfield District Council (Staff Numbers)
  Hertfordshire County Council (Staff Numbers)
  Hertfordshire County Council (Staff Numbers)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Albert Gate, Hyde Park
  Albert Gate, Hyde Park
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Tower Blocks
  Tower Blocks
  Basildon Development Corporation
  Basildon Development Corporation
  House of Commons (Heating)
  House of Commons (Heating)
  Property Services Agency (Empty Premises)
  Property Services Agency (Empty Premises)
  Totnes (Floor Space)
  Totnes (Floor Space)
  Arts Expenditure
  Arts Expenditure
  Military Establishments
  Military Establishments
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Urban Renewal
  Urban Renewal
  Elderly Owner-occupiers
  Elderly Owner-occupiers
  Town Planning Regulations (Enforcement)
  Town Planning Regulations (Enforcement)
  Concrete Prefabricated Houses
  Concrete Prefabricated Houses
  European Ministers for Sport (Meeting)
  European Ministers for Sport (Meeting)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Microchips
  Microchips
  Mozambique (ECGD Facilities)
  Mozambique (ECGD Facilities)
  West Midlands (Bankruptcies)
  West Midlands (Bankruptcies)
  West Midlands (Aid)
  West Midlands (Aid)
  Companies (Profitability)
  Companies (Profitability)
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  North-West
  North-West
  Foreign Investment
  Foreign Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  British Telecom (Advertising)
  British Telecom (Advertising)
  Gas Appliances (Safety)
  Gas Appliances (Safety)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Books (Expenditure)
  School Books (Expenditure)
  Medical Students (London)
  Medical Students (London)
  Teaching Hospitals (London)
  Teaching Hospitals (London)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Hertfordshire (Education Provision)
  Hertfordshire (Education Provision)
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  West Midlands College
  West Midlands College
  University Teachers (Pensions)
  University Teachers (Pensions)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  London Boroughs
  London Boroughs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grants
  Grants
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Overseas Personnel
  Overseas Personnel
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  Civil Servants (Travel Costs)
  East Coast Sprat Fishery
  East Coast Sprat Fishery
  Hill Sheep
  Hill Sheep
  Mackerel
  Mackerel
  Ultra-heat Treated Milk
  Ultra-heat Treated Milk
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Forestry Fund
  Forestry Fund
  BP (Share Sale)
  BP (Share Sale)
  Industrial Companies (Capital)
  Industrial Companies (Capital)
  Norway (Double Taxation)
  Norway (Double Taxation)
  NHS Medical Facilities
  NHS Medical Facilities
  Private Medical Facilities
  Private Medical Facilities
  Charitable Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes
  Charitable Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes
  Tax Changes
  Tax Changes
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
EMPLOYMENT
  London Borough of Newham
  London Borough of Newham
  Cairnryan (Asbestos)
  Cairnryan (Asbestos)
  European Social Fund (Greater London)
  European Social Fund (Greater London)
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  Community Programme (Birmingham)
  Community Programme (Birmingham)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Stoke on Trent
  Stoke on Trent
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Tree Felling (Licences)
  Tree Felling (Licences)
  Assembly (Members' Telephone Calls)
  Assembly (Members' Telephone Calls)
  Geriatric Care
  Geriatric Care
  Electricity Consumers
  Electricity Consumers
  Electricity (Research and Development)
  Electricity (Research and Development)
  Assembly
  Assembly
  Londonderry Enterprise Zone
  Londonderry Enterprise Zone
  Health and Social Services (Privatisation)
  Health and Social Services (Privatisation)
  Hairdressing Apprentices
  Hairdressing Apprentices
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Doctors
  Family Doctors
  Hospital Services (Private Contractors)
  Hospital Services (Private Contractors)
  Local Offices (Birmingham)
  Local Offices (Birmingham)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Newham (Medical Staff)
  Newham (Medical Staff)
  Newham (Hospital Waiting Lists)
  Newham (Hospital Waiting Lists)
  Hospital Meals (Charges)
  Hospital Meals (Charges)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  World Plan of Action on Aging
  World Plan of Action on Aging
  Pensioners (Concessions)
  Pensioners (Concessions)
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Elderly Persons (Cold-related Diseases)
  Elderly Persons (Cold-related Diseases)
  Griffiths Inquiry
  Griffiths Inquiry
  Brent (Supplementary Benefit)
  Brent (Supplementary Benefit)
  Brent (Hospital Waiting Lists)
  Brent (Hospital Waiting Lists)
  Brent (Departmental Staff)
  Brent (Departmental Staff)
  Family Income Supplement (Stoke on Trent)
  Family Income Supplement (Stoke on Trent)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  National Health Service (Staff Illness)
  National Health Service (Staff Illness)
  Ambulance Service (Staffing Levels)
  Ambulance Service (Staffing Levels)
  Reciprocal Pension Arrangements
  Reciprocal Pension Arrangements
  Tinnitus
  Tinnitus
  National Insurance Rates
  National Insurance Rates
  Child Dependency Additions
  Child Dependency Additions
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  Thames Health Regions
  Thames Health Regions

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

World Cup Soccer Tournament 1990
Lord Gainford: 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 are taking steps to persuade the organisers that the 1990 World Cup Soccer Tournament should be played in Great Britain.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the world governing body of football—FIFA—has asked national football associations to bid for the 1990 World Cup. It is understood that England, Greece, Italy and the USSR are in the running, and it is for the English Football Association to pursue with FIFA its bid to host the 1990 World Cup. FIFA regulations determine that the finals must be held in one member country, and therefore the term "Great Britain" is inappropriate as the tournament cannot be staged in more than one of the home countries.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is it not possible to go ahead, considering the advantages to tourism, employment and also for the benefit of our telecommunications systems?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course my noble friend is quite right. Indeed the 1966 World Cup—the finals of which were played here—gave English soccer a great boost. I should remind the House that we won that competition as well as hosting it. Of course this boost would come to all the various industries involved, including tourism. But I should point out to
2
my noble friend that the soccer bodies generally would deem it inappropriate if there were direct Government sponsorship at this stage.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, although I may not be here when this event takes place—I shall do my best—can the noble Lord give an assurance that if any of the matches are played in Great Britain the spectators from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales will behave themselves?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, regretfully, speaking as a member of the Government, I can only say that the full force of the law will he brought to bear upon them if they misbehave; but I am afraid I cannot give the assurance sought, much as I should like to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister not acknowledge that one of the best ways of persuading the authorities to bring the World Cup to this country is to do what the Labour Government did in 1966, which was to make funds available which were then used for the improvement of grounds? Is the Minister not prepared, even though there may be the kind of technical problems to which he referred, to recognise the glorious opportunity which having the World Cup here would be? As the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, there would be spin-offs which would benefit not only industry but the millions of people who look forward to repeating not merely the experience of 1966 but I hope the victory of 1966 as well.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree. But I think I am right in saying that so far as the 1966 World Cup was concerned these guarantees were given after the successful application to FIFA. This is exactly what we intend to follow should our application be successful in this instance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister be prepared, in support of Lord Gainford's submission of this question, first of all to substitute "England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland" for "Great Britain"? Secondly, would he be prepared, even at this early stage—because these things take such a long time—to discuss the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Gainford, with the FA,

3
so that at least we shall then be properly prepared, and if any of our four countries get to the finals we shall have done the preparatory work, thanks to Lord Gainford's Question?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already answered the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on the point that he raised, and I have said that should we be successful I do not see any difficulty on the Government's side in giving guarantees on matters like transportation, immigration and security. In my original Answer I pointed out that it is for one of the home countries to apply, in which case it is either England, Scotland or Wales; I am told there is also a national body representing football in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, obviously all true fans are always welcome at football matches wherever they are held.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, in the light of that answer from the Minister, may I ask him whether he is aware that England has the highest concentration of first division top class football grounds in the world? Norwich City, for instance, comes to mind. Is the noble Lord aware that it so happens that the first rate, first division clubs are all close to main line stations, which would help tremendously with our tourism and our trade? Is he also aware that friendly neighbourhood policemen constantly patrol between the stations and the grounds and know those routes, and therefore would be able to take care of hospitality to excitable foreign fans?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The real problem is not that the grounds are not there, not that the very excellent teams are not there, not that transportation is not there, but that there is a mammoth crowd control problem in this country. There is no problem with reputable fans, but it is with what I might describe as the outsiders, who very often do not even bother to go to matches themselves. They are the ones who cause the problem and cause us all concern.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government, when they have finished interesting themselves in football, will take a little interest in the unemployed?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a totally different question, but of course we regularly take great interest in the unemployed.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance, in case the competition is held here in 1990, that the Government will take steps between now and 1990—and tell us what those steps are—to ensure that there is a reduction in the unruly behaviour that now takes place in so many football grounds?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again that is a slightly different question, but as I have been at pains to stress throughout my answers this afternoon, we are absolutely determined that where law breaking occurs the law breakers should face the full panoply of the law.

EC Citizens: Medical Treatment in U.K.
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many citizens of EC member states were referred to this country for medical treatment from June 1979 to the present day.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, since the beginning of 1979 some 1,100 patients have been referred here under the Community regulations. This figure does not include private patients.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that interesting, although perhaps slightly disconcerting reply, can she say whether the Government are entirely satisfied with the existing reciprocal provisions for health available to British travellers in EC countries?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answering my noble friend, I am not quite sure why she is bewildered, because it is a tribute to the National Health Service, and in particular to its specialist services, that it attracts so many referrals. With regard to the second point concerning reciprocal arrangements, I believe that about 20 patients a year from this country have gone abroad for treatment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I just do not understand the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, being somewhat disconcerted by the reply? It is a good thing that people can come to Britain for treatment just as much as people can go to EC countries for treatment. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that about 20 cases a year had been referred to EC countries for treatment. Can she give the figure for the number of people treated on holiday due to accidents and the many other causes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, referring back to the other question, it is slightly over 20 cases each year—a total of about 120 in the period covered by the Question; that is, since 1979. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question: no, I cannot.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely referrals occur because the treatment cannot be obtained in the home countries. It is a tremendous tribute to our National Health Service that it is so widely desired.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think that there was a questions there. but I have already paid tribute to our National Health Service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer one question, if not now then by either writing to me or publishing an answer in Hansard? The principle of reciprocity started in the Council of Europe with about 10 or 11 countries, from which it has since grown as this country has joined the EC, and

5
now stretches into some states of America. That shows that this is possibly another great aspect of our NHS, as the noble Baroness rightly said, and it shows a behaviour amongst mankind of which we have never seen the like before. Can the noble Baroness please supply the actual percentage statistics?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord: the percentage statistics of what?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in the reciprocity agreement some illnesses are not reciprocal. Will the noble Baroness take on board that the degree of reciprocity varies from country to country because it excludes certainillnesses, but generally no accidents—are they all included?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the original Question referred to the EC. The United States and other countries outside the EC do not come into this particular Question.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, as the Government are closing down a large number of hospitals in this country, will our hospitals be able to continue taking in these overseas patients?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, certainly they will, because in no case do they jump the National Health Service queues. When people wish to come to this country for treatment they have to wait their turn.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I ask whether my, noble friend is aware that I was slightly disconcerted about her original Answer because I felt we ought to be absolutely sure that, as such a large number of people are coming from abroad to this country, the reciprocal arrangements are all right for our visitors going overseas? Further, may I also ask whether disabled travellers from this country to EC countries are able to get the same equipment and amenities that disabled patients who visit this country from the EC can obtain?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the question, 1,100 people since 1979 does not seem to me to be a vast number. With regard to the second part, that is another question which I shall be delighted to answer if my noble friend can table it on another occasion.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I have one further question for the noble Baroness, and I am sure she will not mind answering. There is a very important point on EC agreements. Before anyone proceeds abroad from this country a somewhat complicated form must be completed. Does the noble Baroness agree that that must be stressed?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if a patient arrives without the necessary form, the department's advice to hospitals is to charge the patient as an overseas visitor but that the cost should be refunded if the form is subsequently received.

West Midlands College of Higher Education
2.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the future of the West Midlands College of Higher Education.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the provision to be made in 1984–85 for the West Midlands College of Higher Education and elsewhere in the local authority sector of higher education is currently being considered by the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education (the NAB)—the body set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to advise him on such matters. The NAB's recommendations have still to be submitted to my right honourable friend, and it will be a little time yet before final decisions are announced.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that the recommendations of the NAB to wipe out the three degree courses were received with astonishment, anger and dismay not merely by the college and its students but throughout the West Midlands? Does the Minister appreciate that when the courses were conceived as a vocationally relevant package for the 1980s they were approved not only by the authority but by HMIs and the Department of Education and Science? Will the Government recognise and take fully on board the potential knock-on consequences of the action? Will they recognise that not only should these relevant courses of quality he maintained but the future of the college in this difficult area of the country also ought to be secured? Will the Minister use his best endeavours to make sure that the case that I am attempting to make is borne heavily in mind when the future of the college is being considered?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord's Question, the NAB's proposals have not yet been submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If the NAB's eventual advice to my right honourable friend is that the diversified courses of the college should be withdrawn, he will need to consider the proposal, not only on its own merits but also in relation to its impact on the institution as a whole. I agree that he will need to reach a judge ment on the prospects of the college continuing as an institution devoted exclusively to teacher training. If those prospects do not appear favourable, the NAB's proposals will have to be weighed against the possible loss of this college's contribution to teacher education. However, as I have said, we are not yet at that stage. I also understand that there has been considerable lobbying on behalf of the college, which has been brought to the attention of my right honourable friend. I shall make sure that he also reads what has been said in this House today.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister know that in the magazine Education this week it is said that Her Majesty's Inspectors admitted to the paper that they had made a tragic mistake in backing the closure of these courses at the West Midlands College? Is he willing to make representations to the Secretary of State and others who will make the final decision to bear that fact in mind, as it seems extremely important?
The Earl of Swinton:Yes, my Lords. I have not in fact read the article, but, as I have said, the NAB has not yet produced it proposals. I am sure that when it does all these things will he taken into account.

Youth Training and Social Benefits
2.53 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many young people have had their benefit or supplementary benefit withheld as a result of refusing or failing to avail themselves of an opportunity of receiving training of the youth training scheme.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the scheme has not yet been running long enough for the numbers of young people refusing courses to be known. Quarterly records are being kept of the numbers of reported refusals and premature terminations and some information about these cases should be available early in 1984.
Baroness David: My Lords, do I assume from the noble Baroness's reply that some young people are being reported for failing to take up places on the youth training scheme and also that there are some so-called premature terminations? Will the noble Baroness perhaps be kind enough to find a different word for this, as "premature termination" is not a very suitable description for people who come off the courses? Will she tell her Ministers that the careers officers are finding it very unpleasant to be involved in peaching on their clients when they are supposed to work by co-ordination rather than coercion?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the expression "premature termination" sounds as if it would be better used in a totally different context. With regard to the other part of the noble Baroness's question, there is nothing new about benefit penalties on refusal of suitable training or employment. The rules are based on legislation which has applied for many years. The youth training scheme is recognised as approved training for the purposes of Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. We see no reason for making exemptions. Careers officers do of course aim to ensure that offers of training are suitable for particular individuals. If they find that an opportunity of suitable training has been refused without good cause they ought to report the facts to the benefit adjudicating authorities, as they have always done in respect of refusal of suitable employment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether she has had time to look at the last report of the Social Security Advisory Committee which suggested that young disabled people should have special consideration and that perhaps the cut-off should not be applied so strictly to disabled young people who may have greater difficulties in getting a job? What appeal do these young people have if they feel that they have reasonably refused a job?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the disabled cause. I believe that that is being looked into. As I am not certain of this and should hate to mislead the House, I shall confirm that in writing to the noble Baroness. I take it that the second point in her question is whether there is any point in training unwilling people.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, if a young person feels that he or she has reasonably refused a job, what appeal does he or she have against the decision?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. They have recourse to appeal, as in every other case of that kind. They certainly can appeal.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the facts are reported to the benefit authorities, both in the case of refusal to take up a place on a scheme and premature termination, as the noble Baroness says that they sometimes are, is a copy of the notice that is sent to the benefit authorities served on the claimant so that he or she knows what case is made against him or her and can therefore properly present a case before the tribunal?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to let the noble Lord know about that.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Manpower Services Commission has made a study of the reasons for poor take-up of the scheme in certain areas? May not failure to take up or stick to a course be due to some inadequacy in the design of the scheme?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that I included that point in my original Answer. The take-up of places is increasing by leaps and bounds.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, may I press the noble Baroness on this? The last information that we had in the House was given on 2nd November and it was that the rate of take-up was about 50 per cent. of the numbers required in a full year—that is to say, 240,000 when what is required is 460,000. This is a rather low rate of take-up. If it is to be further detracted from by refusals and premature terminations, what will happen to the youth training scheme?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, the figures have gone up since the last notification of figures. The youth training scheme is on its way to being the success that it deserves to be. The numbers joining it are growing all the time. I think that by

9
Christmas there should be promises of places for all the numbers eligible.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to tell the other Ministers involved that the careers officers are worried that form UB86Y, which has to be used by those young people who have prematurely terminated their courses, is extremely complicated and difficult to fill in for those not particularly bright in the head? Can something a little simpler be produced for them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am interested in the point which the noble Baroness raises, which shall certainly pass on.

Business
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 in the form of a Statement an Answer being made to a Private Notice Question in another place on the operations of British Nuclear Fuels Limited at Sellafield.
This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the shootings in County Armagh.

Oil Taxation Bill
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In his Budget this spring, my right honourable friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a number of measures relating to the way oil producing companies are taxed. Most of these measures were enacted in the first of this year's Finance Acts. Another main element of the package, the abolition of royalties for certain fields, is contained in the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading last Thursday. The Oil Taxation Bill now before your Lordships completes this package of measures on the oil industry.
This year's Budget package was designed to provide incentives to develop future free-standing fields, and to encourage further exploration and appraisal. I am happy to say that the industry has welcomed these measures. More than that, there has been clear evidence that companies are reconsidering projects which they had previously put aside as uneconomic. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has been much encouraged by the number of development applications approved or under consideration. In our view, if the tax system properly takes account of changing oil field economics, private enterprise may be relied on to see to it that oil and gas resources are developed.
I now turn to the Bill before your Lordships. As I have said, this completes the package of oil industry measures which we have introduced this year. It relaxes the rules for petroleum revenue tax relief for
10
expenditure on assets with shared use, such as pipelines. Partly as a corollary to giving full relief, it also charges related receipts, such as pipeline tariffs, to PRT. Before I say more about what it does, I should like to remind your Lordships of why changes in this area were necessary.
I say "remind" for I am sure that your Lordships will recall that as long ago as May 1982 we issued a consultative document on this subject. It described in detail how the scene in the North Sea was changing, and why it was necessary to reconsider the way in which PRT relief is given for expenditure on long-term assets. The issue of the document made possible a process of consultation which, while inevitably quite lengthy, has been wholly beneficial. In the Bill before your Lordships we are implementing the proposals in the consultative document in the light of the discussions that we have had with the industry, and we have filled them out in great detail to cater for the many permutations of circumstances which exist in the North Sea.
Projects for the development of oil and gas fields in the North Sea involve very large front-end outlays before any significant income arises. Each of the earlier field developments had generally involved a more or less complete dedicated production system. Alternatively, these facilities had been shared between, say, two fields from the outset. That pattern of development was reflected quite directly in the existing PRT structure. PRT is charged separately on each field, and it allows for each field full front-end loaded relief for the assets dedicated wholly to that field.
The indications were, however, that this pattern of development would change significantly over the next few years. There were two reasons for expecting this. First, there is by now a substantial "infrastructure" of assets of the kind that I have described already in place in the North Sea and on land; that is to say, platforms, pipelines, and shore facilities. These facilities were built to a size to serve relatively large first-generation United Kingdom fields. But the profile of field production is characteristically such that many of these assets are already, or will soon be, under-used in the service of the fields for which they were first built. They will have spare capacity to take on oil and gas from other fields.
Secondly, it is generally expected that the next generation of North Sea fields will be smaller than the first generation. Also, they will often be found reasonably close to the "infrastructure" of assets already in place. Some of these new fields may be more productive in resource terms if they use existing assets, rather than use purpose-built facilities of their own; others may indeed be quite uneconomic to develop unless they can do so.
We needed also to consider the case even where no existing assets are available to be shared in the way that I have described. Here, new assets will be needed, but it may well be advantageous to develop these new assets in a way which maximises the potential for them to be shared with other fields later in the life of the assets. It was generally acknowledged that these trends in development were clear, and it was becoming increasingly important that the tax system should support the trends rather than discourage them or stand in their way.

11
But the latter is precisely what the existing rules for giving relief for expenditure on the assets involved do, where there is any question of their being shared with a third party's field. Relief is given under one or other of two rules. As the law stands, if the proportion of use by a third party can be estimated, relief for the necessarily costly expenditure on long-term assets is restricted by that proportion. If full relief has already been given before any question of use by a third party arises, then some of it is clawed back. But it may well not be possible to estimate the extent to which third parties will use an asset. Where that is the case, under existing law the expenditure has to be spread over the life of the asset and a proportion allowed period by period. A switch to this basis could cost the industry some hundreds of millions of pounds on existing assets alone, only part of which would be restored later, and then possibly over a long period of years. And where any new development had to be put onto this method from the start it could well be discouraged. That is why we have had to introduce the Bill before your Lordships. In most cases the provisions in this Bill will remove both the existing rules so that third party use is no longer a ground for restricting relief; full relief will he available from the start. In ordinary circumstances, there will be no possibility of its being lost.
The consultative document also proposed to charge incidental receipts, such as tariff income or sales proceeds, where they are attributable to the assets which are being given this more favourable relief treatment. The Bill also achieves this. Now that we are giving full relief for an asset irrespective of whether it is used by a third party, it is reasonable to take receipts into account. In any case it is also anomalous that tariffs received by the owner of an asset for the use of his pipeline are not liable to PRT in his hands, although they are allowable PRT expense for the field which pays for them.
But, although it is right that they should be charged, we have had regard to the possibility, which was raised with us by the oil industry, that the new charge would drive up tariffs to an extent which would make certain small fields that would be asked to pay them uneconomic to work. It would be quite wrong to proceed on the assumption that the level of tariffs is set only by the tax system. Commercial factors—for example. what the market will bear—are very important. But tax plays a part, and its was partly for this reason that, following the consultation process that I have described, in addition to the increased relief for the relevant expenditure on the tariffed assets, the Government proposed a tariff receipts allowance, and set it at a generous level.
Perhaps I should draw your attention to one matter which was announced in the May 1982 consultative document, but which was not included in the spring Finance Bill. This is the extension of the charge on receipts to those relating to fixed assets in our territory, or on our sector of the continental shelf, which are owned by licensees of overseas oil fields. We did in fact give notice of our intentions in this respect last April in a parliamentary Answer by my honourable friend the then Minister of State to the Treasury. Foreign oil-producers are on a similar footing to our own oil-producers, and it is clearly right that any receipts
12
generated by the United Kingdom use accruing to assets in United Kingdom waters should come within the same taxing scope for petroleum revenue tax as applies to our own producers, as indeed they already do for corporation tax. There have been discussions at official level with the country which could be affected in the near future—that is, Norway—to ensure that any double taxation is relieved.
This is a long Bill, and its provisions are long and complex. That is because the situations for which they have to provide are many and complex. But I have explained to your Lordships why the Bill is needed and what are its main purposes and effects. These are relatively straightforward and I think not in any way controversial. I commend the Bill to your Lordships with confidence. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Glenarthur.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I feel sure that the House will wish to thank the Minister for the lucid manner in which he has described a very complicated Bill, and for the fact that he has done so in a very short time. Since North Sea oil is so crucial to this country's economy at present and will remain so for a long period ahead, it is always tempting, when the slightest opportunity arises, to discuss the subject on the widest possible basis—for example, to discuss depletion policy, the use to which oil revenues are put. the effect on our total economy and the planning for the time when North Sea oil runs out. These are all interesting and important subjects which ought to exercise the minds of your Lordships. I shall, however, resist the temptation today because it would take a long time. I feel sure that there will be another opportunity to discuss these matters.
The Bill, although very important, deals with a comparatively narrow area of oil taxation. The changes do not conflict with any fundamental principles, as was the case, for example, in the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Bill, which obtained a Second Reading in your Lordships' House last Thursday. Over the past four years, there have been a large number of changes in the oil tax regime. Indeed, these changes have caused much frustration to the oil companies, who have felt that their need to undertake long-term planning has been sacrificed to the Government's desire to maximise their own revenue in the short term. However, the measures enacted in this year's Finance Bill together with the measures contained in this Bill are much more acceptable and bring hope of a more stable tax regime for the future. That will certainly be welcome to me, to the Opposition, and, indeed, to the oil companies.
The Bill, as I say, is a complex measure and the provisions within it are highly technical. However, the proposals are sensible and recognise the changing circumstances in regard to the future of North Sea oil development. It is highly likely that new developments will be smaller than existing ones and the need to cut costs will be a paramount consideration. It is essential that the Government remove any barriers in the way of the oil companies making the best possible use of

13
existing and future assets, for, by so doing, they will encourage the development of the smaller fields.
The provision in the Bill for relief on shared and mobile assets will assist, particularly as proper safeguards are provided. The provisions are certainly acceptable and the Opposition will put no impediment in the way of the Bill, which should be passed with the minimum of delay.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, all I will say is that I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general welcome to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
3.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I beg to move this order in the name of the my noble friend Lord Mansfield.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th October be approved.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I take this opportunity to make a few remarks on the order. I had hoped that, on the occasion of my maiden intervention in the House, I should have been able to exude some confidence or express some hope for Northern Ireland in the future. However, the events of yesterday afternoon in County Armagh have determined otherwise. The happenings yesterday afternoon in a little church not far from the border in Northern Ireland will, I believe, have shocked and appalled every Member of this House. I myself, who have spent my lifetime in Northern Ireland, cannot yet fully understand what was the motivation of those who carried out such a brutal and callous murder of innocent people in a place of worship.
I had hoped last week that this order could have been moved and debated in a non-controversial manner. It deals with access to the countryside. Northern Ireland has a beautiful countryside, but the actions of those men yesterday have desecrated and defiled the very soil of the island of Ireland both North and South and have brought nothing but shame and degradation to the name of Ireland. I know that I shall have the support of the whole House in expressing my sympathy to the relatives of those who were so cruelly cut adrift from their loved ones in Northern Ireland.
I remember most vividly my maiden intervention in another place in 1966. Again, it was to highlight the awful state of society as it then was in Northern Ireland. Sadly, every day and every year has only led to an exacerbation of the awful situation as it then was. The events of yesterday, I believe were deliberately calculated to provoke a religious civil war in Northern Ireland. I believe that that was the deliberate and calculated intention. I can only make an appeal to those who are the target of that provocation not to fall into the trap that has been set for them.
14
The order contains 56 articles and five schedules. It seems a very heavy order if it was designed solely to create legislation to allow people to pass along public highways in Northern Ireland. I am ever mindful of any, or all, of the powers that are at present used and that may be given to district councils in Northern Ireland. There is nothing that is not controversial, or that cannot be made controversial, in relation to district authorities in Northern Ireland.
I wonder whether the Minister has undertaken the required consultation with the district authorities. Has he sought and been given ideas, or been made aware of the attitudes of the various spokesmen within the Northern Ireland Assembly? As my noble friend, Lord Donaldson, who is here this afternoon, will be aware, however much we may deliberate in this House or in another place, the real place to discuss these issues as they affect people in Northern Ireland is in a political assembly in the city of Belfast which would take in the representative views of the whole community in Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly said throughout my life as a political representative that another place, and indeed this House, cannot be fully aware in exactly the same way as people elected to a local assembly where local political structures are created of all the issues as they relate to Northern Ireland.
Therefore, on looking at the 56 articles, I personally, having been a city representative, cannot see anything dreadfully controversial, but it may be that some of the rural Members from Northern Ireland will see something in this proposed legislation which I do not see. I would only ask the Minister when he is replying to tell us whether he has had the consultations which are so necessary with the local authorities and with the representatives of the Assembly.
I have risen to my feet this afternoon to speak on this Bill, but my real intention is to put on the record of this House the appalling tragedy which befell the people in Armagh last night and to emphasise the need for us, everyone in this House, to say to those who were responsible that, however devilish their deeds may be, they will not succeed in attaining their political aims.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House will have been pleased to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Fitt and will be pleased that he is with us in this House. I am certain that he will bring to the House added sincerity and conviction on the issues of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the whole House will pay tribute to his courage and to his conviction. Knowing his views on political and social matters I feel certain that the House will wish to hear my noble friend not only on Northern Ireland issues but on other matters as well. We thank him for his contribution this afternoon.
The order before us deals with very important matters; namely, the protection and maintenance of public rights of way and the public access to the countryside. As my noble friend Lord Fitt has said, the order comprises some 56 articles and four schedules. It is equivalent to a Bill, but because of the way in which we have to deal with legislation affecting Northern Ireland it cannot be amended. I note that the draft was considered by the Environment Committee of the

15
Assembly and that a detailed report was presented to that body. As no amendments are possible there is no point in going into detail, but there are a number of questions and matters which I would like to raise with the Minister. I am only sorry that I was unable to give him prior notice of these matters, but some of my reading of the Assembly's report was only completed over the weekend.
Article 2 draws no distinction between footpaths for walkers only and bridle ways which are to be used by both walkers and horse riders. In fact, the definition of "public path" would appear to cover walkers, horse riders and cyclists. There is also reference to it in Article 20, and it would appear to me that there is not sufficient definition. Under Article 3(1) a district council is charged with the compilation and preservation of maps and records of public rights of way. I should like to ask the Minister: what is the situation if a council fails to act? What is the standing of these maps and records? Do they have a definitive and legal standing? They are the same type of provisions as in Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Nowhere is there any reference to the scale of the maps or to how the public rights of way shall be marked upon them. Nor is there any reference to these maps and records being available for public inspection. What is the position regarding existing rights of way and public footpaths? Will a current register be sufficient? Will that have legal backing or has there to be a separate notice and decision on each path and public right of way?
Under Article 7 there is no duty upon the district councils to enforce the provisions with regard to ploughing. County councils in England and Wales have to carry out certain enforcement duties. Article 12 deals with the compulsory powers for the creation of public paths. Should there be public pressure for a public path, but a district council considers otherwise, are there provisions for any persons to appeal, may be to the department? I cannot see any reference to this in Schedule 1.
As regards Article 19, do the provisions of Schedule 1 apply to the temporary closures and diversions? If not, what safeguards will there be? Article 21 deals with long distance paths. Is the Minister able to give any indication as to the type of bodies which may be consulted as provided for in paragraph (4)? Will guidance be given to district councils on the type of bodies that should be consulted? In those cases where a long distance path may traverse more than one district council, how will the co-ordination be arranged? Will appropriate bodies be consulted before decisions are taken?
It was clear from the evidence presented to the Environment Committee of the Assembly that there are questions being raised in Northern Ireland about the Ulster Way which I understand passes through 21 of the 26 district councils. Why is the Ulster Way Committee not to be retained? If that body is not to be retained, why is there not another suitable body for that purpose? That point is made very strongly in paragraph 8 on page 8 of the Assembly's report. It is also advocated by the Sports Council of Northern Ireland, the National Trust and the Society for the Preservation of the Countryside.
16
I come to Part III dealing with access to open country. I see that Article 27 provides that:
"A district council shall consult the Department and such bodies … representatives of owners and occupiers".
Is there provision for bodies representative of the public to be consulted? If not, why not? I note that the Sports Council of Northern Ireland states that it is a fact that the public in Northern Ireland generally believe that access to the mountains, moorlands and coastline is theirs as of right. In fact, many of us believe that that is the case in Great Britain as well. It is also observed that it is possible for an individual to gain legal access to open country, but after traversing a few miles he may find that legal access is no longer open to him. Is that not a matter for a central body to deal with?
I note that under Schedule 1 there is reference to prescribed bodies. Your Lordships will find the reference in paragraph 3(b)(iii). Will the Government list precisely who those prescribed bodies are? Finally, is there not a sound case for the creation of a body somewhat similar to the Countryside Commission to deal with all relevant matters under this order? Despite the efficiency of "the Department"—which is referred to throughout but which I presume is another way of describing the Ministers concerned—it is not sufficient to leave these matters to the Department, and the establishment of such a commission is recommended by the Assembly on page 10 of its report. I have raised just some of the issues which seem to me to be apparent. If we were able to amend the order like a Bill, there would be many other matters.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must confess my feeling of admiration for the homework which has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I looked at the order fairly carefully and I could not find a single question to ask. However, I suppose that that is the difference between industry and idleness. I did take the trouble to ring up the Northern Ireland Office and was assured that this order was simply bringing Northern Ireland into line with our arrangements here.
Although I do not have much to say about this order, I have quite a lot to say about the most important part of it; namely, the maiden speech of my old friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and his appearance here, at which we all, in all parts of the House, rejoice. I think that he was the Member of Parliament for Belfast Dock in the 1972 Stormont Government. We then had the executive, which lasted for five months on a power-sharing basis and was finally wrecked because one section of the Protestant extremists had failed to join. The best organised men of violence on the Protestant side broke it. During that time the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was a colleague of mine; I was the Minister in the Government and I think that he was Deputy Chief Executive of that Government. He was respected by all—certainly by the Protestants and certainly in those days by the SDLP. It was only later that they turned against him, and they turned against him because he was right and they were wrong. If they had been able to do what he would have done and what he favoured doing—which was to come into the Assembly at once and share the

17
power that was being offered—we would have a very much more hopeful situation than we have now.
He was a pleasure to work with. He used to enter the Secretary of State's office, sit down, take his gun out of his pocket—of course, he was not allowed a gun in the Secretary of State's office, although he was allowed one in his pocket—and the flow of language of all kinds was fascinating but always extremely well-informed and extremely shrewd. It is a tragedy that his colleagues in the SDLP have rejected the best man they ever had.
I shall say no more, except to point out that in his remarks he gave us something very disagreeable to think about concerning what we have to discuss in the Statement which is to be made later this afternoon. I shall say no more about that until then. However, I should like to conclude by saying that I welcome this order, but even more I welcome the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in our House.
3.32 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to rise and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on his appearance in this House and on his speech. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said about how much he will contribute on many matters to this House. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I have known each other for a very long time and I think that we have a mutual respect. It is a great pleasure to follow him, and his maiden speech today was certainly the trigger which prompted me to speak on this particular order, because this draft measure has been very fully discussed with many people. It has not satisfied everybody, and I personally have one or two reservations.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned horses. I believe that the order empowers local councils to allow trekkers on horseback and people like that to use these footpaths, but it is to be at the discretion of the local council and there could be some disagreement on that. For my sins, I am the national representative of the British Horse Society in Northern Ireland and we have made representations on this point.
On a much wider issue, if the Minister can assure us that the Department of Agriculture will have a very large say in the consultations that will take place before a footpath is designated, I believe that the fear of the farmers will in fact be satisfied. As I have said before, the Department of Agriculture has a very special relationship with the industry, whether it is the manufacturing industry attached to agriculture or the agricultural industry itself. The farmers of Ulster have great confidence in the department. I should like an assurance from my noble friend that he is satisfied that in fact his department will have a large say. I, therefore, recommend this order.

Radioactive Waste: Sellafield
3.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to repeat an Answer to a Private Notice
18
Question being made in another place by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment. It reads as follows:
"The Sellafield works of British Nuclear Fuels Limited which are an essential part of the United Kingdom's nuclear power programme, operate under the terms of a site licence issued by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive and in accordance with authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste issued by my department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The latter are published in an appendix to the company's annual report on discharges, and according to the department's information, they have kept within them.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set out fully in a Written Answer on 2nd November the substantial reductions in discharges the company have recently made and the further reductions we have required them to make over the next couple of years. The authorising departments keep a continual watch on the situation and all the available scientific and monitoring data, and will take whatever action is necessary to ensure continued protection of the public.
"A discharge occurred over the weekend of 12th-14th November, which caused some contamination of a short stretch of beach near the site to be discovered on 19th November. BNFL have stated that this did not represent a danger to the public and the beach was reopened last night. As a precaution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is carrying out its own monitoring in the area, including monitoring of the beach and fish. Inspectors of my department are making a formal investigation to discover how the incident occurred and whether there has been any breach of the conditions of the authorisation."
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the frank and forthright statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on the radio programme, "The World this Weekend" yesterday, that the Government are dissatisfied with the safety standards at Sellafield, while alarming in itself, is welcomed as a manifest of the Government's unease? When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in that programme that he was not satisfied that BNFL was meeting the high standards which now exist, does he appreciate that this must fill the whole country with alarm—and, I venture to suggest, with anger as well—and that all actions he intends to take to make BNFL management act efficiently and responsibly will receive the backing of all sides of this House?
When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the Government have been worried for some years about the discharges and have been taking major action to diminish them, can we be told what these major steps have been? Without wishing to over-dramatise the issue, does the Minister appreciate that it is not possible to over-dramatise this particular issue? Has the Minister seen the statements by British Nuclear Fuels that it is satisfied that there is no danger

19
to the public? However, the public—particularly those living in the area—are far from satisfied.
Is the Minister aware that process workers have stated that the recent leak was bigger than has been admitted? Can the Minister reconcile press reports over the weekend that, although workers claim that up to 20 times the permitted daily limit of radioactive waste has been pumped into the sea, the company asserts that it has only been two-and-a-half times the legal limit? If the Minister shares our view that two-and-a-half times the legal limit is intolerable, will he ensure that the company complies with the standards laid down on medical and environmental grounds, and that no excess above the legal limit will be tolerated?
Finally, are the Government aware that public confidence in ultimate public safety, as it is affected by the disposal of nuclear waste, can be crucially affected by the manner in which Ministers face their responsibilities to make sure that safety measures for the public safety are scrupulously and unfailingly observed? To this extent we on these Benches say on this issue, "All power to your collective elbow".
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for repeating this Answer. I would not wish in any way to be alarmist about this situation; I think it is very easy to draw alarmist conclusions. Recently there has been much publicity about leukaemia cases occurring near to Windscale. My own view is that one should be suspicious of too many conclusions being drawn from a very small sample. However, that will not make the problem go away.
Again, like the noble Lord speaking from the Labour Party Front Bench, one heard the statements by Mr. William Waldegrave the other day, which did very little to alleviate one's concern. Do the Government not agree that the Answer we have just heard is somewhat anodyne in relation to the statements made over the weekend? May I ask why, for instance, if a discharge occurred over the weekend of the 12th–14th it then took five days for the site to be discovered from which it was apparently necessary to remove the public? Does that mean that regular monitoring is not going on in these areas and that a sudden accidental discharge will not be picked up in time to preserve the local population from undue hazard?
One is grateful for this Statement having been made, but in the past so many statements have been made and assurances given—for instance, by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on 22nd December 1976. The public is getting a little tired of feeling that a veil of secrecy is being drawn unduly over these matters when their health could be at risk. I am not saying that it is at risk; I am saying that it could be at risk. Will the Government recognise that they need to be even more open than they have been so far?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this subject. I certainly appreciate the concern. Indeed, I welcome the chance to amplify some of the things which were said over the weekend. The one thing that we do not want is any secrecy, or anything of that kind. That is the one thing
20
that is likely to cause real concern, and with some justification for it.
So far as the Statement which my honourable friend made is concerned, clearly he would himself have to expand on that if it was thought necessary, but may I answer some of the points that the noble Lord has made. First, the Government are showing their concern by the fact that we have immediately called for the Black inquiry to be carried out. It is right that it should be. Although we have no evidence at all that would indicate that there is need for concern at the moment, nevertheless the fact that this kind of thing happens itself is enough to have made us want to institute the inquiry, and that we have done.
If I may answer both noble Lords together, I was asked why it took five days before the effect on the beach was observed. I understand that there is no effect if the tides have taken the waste away from the coast. But, again, this is the kind of thing that needs to be considered, and I am sure will be, when the Black inquiry does its work. Of course, it is basically a responsibility of the company, but, having said that, the Government themselves must want to know also; because it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, that there is great concern by individuals, and not least those who live in the area. That is why we seek in no way to try to say all is well.
So far as we know on the evidence we have there is no need for concern, but the fact that this matter has arisen in this way is enough, and we must look at it. I assure both noble Lords and the rest of your Lordships' House that we do not take this lightly at all, despite the fact that we do not consider that there is any evidence so far that makes us worry overly about it. Nevertheless, it must be looked into carefully, and it will be.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I say what I ought to have said earlier? I am grateful to the Minister for having repeated the Statement here that was being made by his honourable friend in another place. Will the noble Lord the Minister take it from me and I am sure from many others, that we welcome the declaration that he has made, that in no way are the Government to be party to secrecy or hushing up? There is obviously a borderline to be drawn in the kind of information which properly falls into one category. However, we are talking about a public unease and unrest that in our view can be quickly allayed, and that is by the determination of the Government to make sure that the company fulfils the responsibilities laid upon it. The weekend press reports may not be wholly accurate, but if the assertion is made that something which is two and half times above the legal limit is tolerable, then we on this side of the House are saying that that assertion should in no way be tolerable. But we are grateful for what the Minister has indicated, and that is deep concern and continuing determination to make sure that safety is maintained.

Darkley, Armagh: Shootings
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in

21
another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
"At approximately 6.15 p.m. yesterday, at least three men armed with automatic weapons entered the Mountain Lodge Pentecostal Gospel Hall near the village of Darkley in County Armagh. They opened fire in the entrance hall, killing two church elders and fatally wounding a third, whom they then followed into the Gospel Hall itself. There the gunmen opened fire on the congregation of between 60 and 70 people, including about 20 children. Seven members of the congregation were injured, two seriously. The gunmen then ran outside, fired another 25 shots at the congregation through the outer walls of the hall, and then fled. None of the congregation had any connection with the security forces. Responsibility for this appalling attack has been claimed by a body calling itself the "Catholic Reaction Force". One of the weapons used has previously been used in incidents for which the Irish National Liberation Army has claimed responsibility.
"The whole House will join me in extending our sympathy to the families of those killed and injured. It will also share my horror and disgust at this outrage. Though in the course of the 14 years campaign of terrorism endured by the people of Northern Ireland there have been other incidents involving greater loss of life, none before has involved the cold-blooded murder of people at worship. The shootings show the true nature of terrorism, and the true nature therefore not only of those who perpetrate it but also of all those who advocate and support it.
"The universal condemnation they have received from all sides of the community, and from all parts of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, shows in full measure the revulsion which this hideous act has aroused.
"The Government of the Republic has given the strongest possible assurances of its full co-operation in pursuing those responsible. The RUC, assisted by the Army, is determined to arrest the murderers".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement. It is a tragic commentary that consideration of an order dealing with the recreation and ordinary life of people in Northern Ireland has to be interrupted by a Statement of this tragic nature. First from these Benches we join in expressing sympathy to the families of all those persons who have been killed and to those who are suffering injury. We join also in the expression in the Statement, of horror at this indescriminate and insensate act. I note in particular in the Statement the emphasis of the universal condemnation which is being given by all sections in the United Kingdom and also in the Republic of Ireland.
No stretch of imagination could justify these acts for any reason whatever. It may be understandable that there are reactions to these horrific acts. From these Benches I would implore that there should be no reprisal activities, and urge also that there should be no protest withdrawal from the Assembly. Either course
22
would play into the hands of the terrorists. I should like to feel that the Government will endorse these two appeals.
Reference is made to steps to be taken by the RUC assisted by the Army. I welcome in the Statement the assurance that the Government of the Republic has promised all co-operation in trying to track the perpetrators of this act. These shootings may bring pressure for additional security measures and changes in legislation. May I ask the Government, if they should consider such pressure, to await completion of the review now being undertaken by Sir George Baker?
3.50 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we in the Alliance in both parties wish to be associated with the horror which has been expressed by the Secretary of State, and we thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement today. Those noble Lords who heard Lord Fitt's maiden speech a few minutes ago will realise that we can say very little to improve upon what he said in his disgust and horror at this intolerable action.
There are two things which are very significant about it. The first is that it was a Nonconformist church, where all the people, on the whole, may be regardedas not terribly keen on Catholicism. It was unquestionably an action motivated by an indirect religious motive. I think that those who did it were probably using religion but were not themselves religious. This feature is particularly disgusting to all of us who believe that people's relationships with their Maker, if any, should be respected by other people as well.
The other significant fact is that one of the weapons used belonged to an organisation which has done great damage already. It is, as it were, the extreme wing of the IRA. I believe it has never been specifically dissociated from the IRA by the IRA, though I may be wrong about that. So far as we are concerned, this is an extreme wing and an even more extreme group has done something which we all deplore.
In his maiden speech, my noble friend said that he thought that this was a deliberate attempt to induce a religious war. It is the first time that I have heard those words used in this House. I believe he was right to use them. I hope he is wrong in his expectation, but I think it is a great warning to all of us to relax not at all in our fight against terrorism. I am glad that the noble Earl, in repeating the Statement, has made it perfectly clear that we will pursue these scoundrels as hard as we possibly can.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for their welcome to this Statement. It is quite obvious that feelings of disgust and revulsion are universally shared throughout the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made an extremely important point about possible reprisal activities. It is true to say that no amount of horror at these shootings could ever be a justification for people taking matters into their own hands. The rule of law can only survive if its enforcement is left to the proper authorities. To do otherwise will merely mean an

23
escalation of violence and will further the objective which the terrorists themselves seek. There can be no question of a religious war; it would merely be an excalation of terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made another point which is also important. Of course the framework is there in the Assembly at Stormont for the people of the Province to workout their political differences in an atmosphere of democracy and union, and it is for them to take up the opportunity. One hopes that the OUP will determine its attitude with the good of the greater number—indeed, of all people in the Province—in mind.
To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, very little is known about the Catholic Reaction Force, because no organisation bearing that name has ever claimed responsibility for an incident and therefore nothing is known either about it or about its members.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, having regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, which, in certain quarters, may not be fully understood, will my noble friend make perfectly clear the utter horrorand degradation which is felt by everybody, and particularly the Catholic community, at this vicious and vile murder which took place last evening?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am sure that all responsible sections of the community in Northern Ireland, and not least the Roman Catholics, will, if they have not already done so, express their revulsion at what has happened.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wonder if I may put on record, following what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, that, as I understood it, the Roman Catholic Archbishop has already stressed his condemnation. It would be most unfair if that were not recorded.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, may I add my expression of horror at what happened last night? It has increased the danger of retaliation. I can only say that any of us who live in Northern Ireland in areas which are under attack will have to do a lot to try to convey confidence back to the people who suffered this appalling tragedy.
What I think has come out—I should very much like my noble friend to convey it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary—is what a magnificent force it is and how scientifically based, so that, within 24 hours, it can trace the ammunition back to the person who has been using it. That is how efficient the force is, and it deserves our tribute from the whole House.
Will my noble friend represent to the Secretary of State that a certain increase in over-security adds confidence in areas where there is a shortage of confidence? That is the presence; a higher level of profile, I think it is called. Secondly, will my noble friend remember that the rule of law is a very delicate thing when there is an attempt at revolution and that suspension of freedom as given by the emergency legislation is something which has, so far, deterred
24
retaliation? When the new emergency laws come back for re-enactment, will he remember that any further weakening of the forces of law might have a disastrous effect in the present climate? Therefore there must be no weakening in the new laws of emergency.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I shall be very happy to pass on everything that my noble friend has said by way of congratulation. In fact only a week ago I went to the forensic science laboratory in the suburbs of Belfast and was extremely impressed with what I saw. I have no doubt that a word of congratulation should be passed to that organisation and the scientists there. I also endorse the other matters which my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there are a number of factors attached to this very brutal murder which are not evident in other murders? First, it was deliberately and overtly, without any ambiguity or qualification, designed to be a sectarian murder. It took place in a church hall. What arose from that was deliberately designed to bring about retaliation from the other community.
Secondly, the word "Catholic" has been used by those who claim to be the Catholic Reaction Group. This is only the second time that the word "Catholic" has been used by those who claim responsibility for murders. The other occasion was when 10 Protestant workmen were killed in the very same area in January 1976. Again, no one has been apprehended for that. It may well be that it was the very same bunch of murderers who murdered the 10 Protestant workmen which carried out the atrocious murder yesterday.
Thirdly, there is a question which frightens me in Northern Ireland. There are many Northern Ireland politicians on the minority side who talk of the alienation that now exists between the minority community in Northern Ireland and this Government. Such sentiments expressed can only but give succour and support to the murderous thugs of the IRA and the INLA. Alienation from the establishment or from the Government can mean one thing, but it should not mean that one then proceeds to the ballot boxes, as many Catholics did in June this year, to vote for candidates who were openly in support of murderers and thugs. That is most important.
Finally, no matter how many troops you may have in Northern Ireland or how many members of the RUC, the only people who can defeat these murderers are the community which at the moment would appear to be giving them support. These murderers could not operate for a single second were they not given the assurance that people within the community either in Northern Ireland or immediately over the border are willing to protect them. It is those people—and particularly the Catholic community in Northern Ireland—who now have it in their own hands to take those people out of circulation by giving information to the security forces. By doing so, they will not only be protecting their own lives but they will be protecting their own community in Northern Ireland and—whether or not it is said by Cardinal O Fiaich—it is in the interests of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland that they should inform on those people, if they know who they are, to the security forces.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House agrees that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has neatly and succinctly summed up the situation pointing out not only the difficulties and dangersbut—perhaps most important of all—that if it were not for the regrettable attitude of some parts of the community, then the men of violence could not exist. This, of course, applies on both sides of the sectarian divide. So I think that it is up to all those who live in the Province—and it is certainly up to the Government—to continue to provide the machinery and the framework which will enable people on each side of the sectarian divide to sink their differences and resort to the ballot box and the debating chamber rather than the bullet.

Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
4.2 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, it may be convenient now that we get back to a little access to the countryside. My first duty is to apologise to the House because I was not in my place at the very moment when this order was called on. My second duty is a much more pleasant one. It is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on his maiden speech. I have had the privilege (if that is the word) of serving (if that is the word) in Ulster only for about six months. I have had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on only one occasion which, curiously enough, was a jubilee dinner in honour of the Royal Maternity Hospital. But what I do know is the universal affection with which he is held in all parts of the Province. That extends to people of every creed and of many different occupations. I know that his wise counsels will help your Lordships when Northern Ireland matters fall to be considered in future. I, too, hope that he will not confine himself to Northern Ireland matters alone but, now he has broken his silence, that he will weigh in on all sorts of issues. I for one shall be very happy to listen to him.
I should also thank your Lordships for the way in which this order has been greeted. It is an important order. It will bring the Province into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by introducing legislation which is equivalent to the rights of way and access to the countryside provisions which have been operative in Great Britain for many years. I think that I shall confine my remarks this evening to outlining the main provisions of the order. I can go into any detail if I am interrupted. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, illustrates the drawbacks of this type of legislation in that we do not have a Committee stage. I am sure that he will forgive me if I say that most of his points were technical and really Committee stage points. I shall write to him about those which I did not scribble down or on which I have not had the help of my officials to answer this evening. I shall send a copy of the letter to every other noble Lord who has taken part in this debate.
What I want to say to begin with is that there have been very wide-ranging consultations with interested
26
bodies in the Province and widespread support for the legislation has been shown. The bodies who have been consulted range from the Assembly itself (which was extremely useful in its consideration of the draft) to organisations such as the Ulster Farmers' Union and the district councils. All in all, there have been pretty full consultations at different levels. Not only were changes made as a result of the consultations, but the revised proposal was considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly welcomed the legislation and put forward 12 recommendations for amendment. Three of them have been included in the draft order and seven of them are already covered in substance in the provisions of the order.
As some noble Lords have said. Part II of the order makes district councils responsible for the assertion and protection of public rights of way and enables them to maintain such ways and to erect guide posts and direction notices on them. Your Lordships will note in Article 3 a change from the published order in that district councils are required to maintain appropriate records of public rights of way in their districts. It is not proposed to introduce a statutory registration procedure with the preparation of definitive maps as provided for in Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Differences of scale, land tenure, the number of public rights of way and so on make a less formal approach more appropriate in Northern Ireland. District councils are also empowered to create new public paths, to bring such paths into fit condition for use, to maintain them, to close and divert public paths by order where necessary or desirable and to make appropriate payment or to pay compensation to persons having an interest in the land involved.
A further change has been made in Article 15 to enable diversion of public paths on appropriate grounds. These changes will enable the protection of the flora and fauna to be grounds for diversion or closure. Article 19 has been amended to allow persons other than the occupier of land to make representations for temporary closures or diversions. Part III makes provision for enabling district councils, where necessary, to make formal arrangements with landowners to enable the public to have access to open country such as mountains, moors, foreshore, woodlands and so on for open-air recreation. Article 26 provides for certain categories of land to be excluded from the provisions of this part of the order, for example, most agricultural land and nature reserves, while Article 27 requires district councils, in consultation with the Department of the Environment and other bodies, to keep under review the need to secure public access to open country and to consider what action should be taken, whether by negotiating access agreements with landowners under Article 28 or by making an access order under Article 29, where it is not possible to make an agreement.
Articles 39 and 40 enable the district councils and the Department of the Environment to acquire land, where this is considered necessary, to enable the public to have access. Provision is also made for the safety of the public on the access land and for the payment of compensation to persons having an interest in land which is adversely affected in consequence of the coming into operation of an access order. Part IV

27
contains further powers of the district councils and the department as well as general financial and supplementary provisions. In particular, Article 44 requires district councils in exercising their functions under the order to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the need to conserve the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.
Article 50 empowers the Department of the Environment to grant aid expenditure incurred under the order, while Article 51 enables district councils to make arrangements with landowners or other persons to assist them with functions concerning the protection, maintenance and signposting of public rights of way and public paths, the carrying out of certain works on access land, and to contribute towards the expenses of these volunteers in so doing.
A number of questions were put to me. I think I have illustrated the very wide range of bodies which were consulted, such as the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Ramblers' Association. I was asked about appeals and I think Article 12 was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. There is an appeal to law as of right but it will be for the Department of the Environment to make the actual decision and there will be no appeal from that. Perhaps I might say on this point that the Department of the Environment will be what I might call the "lead department" in this area; but of course it will take advice from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. I have absolutely no doubt that many of its decisions will be based on the advice it receives from those who are perhaps more versed in agriculture than is the department itself. This applies to what I think my noble friend Lord Brookeborough was saying, that my department, the Department of Agriculture, will have a very full part to play.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I do not pretend to be an expert on this but I was rather shaken by something he has just said. He said that the Department of the Environment will take the decision and that there will be no appeal from that. it just struck me, as an ex-departmental Minister, that he is enunciating a new principle. If the department takes the decision, surely it has been the whole of our practice previously that there has to be an appeal against that to somebody—"to Parliament", says the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sotto voce; to the ombudsman, say I more loudly; to the courts. Did the noble Earl really mean that if a department bureaucratically takes a decision the individual has no appeal to anybody?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, pulls me up correctly. It is necessary to look at the drafting of the order, and also to have some regard for historical events in Northern Ireland, actually to understand that when I say that decisions will be taken by a department it is in fact a term of art and springs from those functions which originally were transferred to the old Stormont legislature and those which were not. Those which were, were drawn back at the time direct rule was imposed on the Province, but because of the way in which their legislation has been traditionally
28
drafted, and still is, if the noble Lord will turn to the order he will in fact see that it is the department in all these cases which acts in a particular way and not the Minister. I have to confess that when I first came to the Northern Ireland Office I was not a little startled to read that myself.
Regarding appeals, for instance, under Article 12, the matter is going to be very similar to an administrative order which a Minister makes. Of course, as such he bears full political responsibility for it and, as I have already said, an appeal will lie at law and it goes without saying that in a proper case the ombudsman will come in. So that I think the correct way to sum up what I have been saying is that in many ways it is similar to what might be called a compulsory purchase order, and the same safeguards and balances will apply as in that instance.
I was going to answer my noble friend Lord Brookeborough about horse riding. District councils have the power to create new public paths and in each case the district council will decide the type of traffic—I think that is the word: at any rate, those who may use the path, for instance, ramblers, equestrians, cyclists or a combination of these—and the district council will pass by-laws which will regulate traffic in these ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the definition of public paths. The district council will have the power to create new public paths and they will have the power to determine what type of path each will be. In other words, it goes back to the traffic point. A public path is defined in Article 2, I think: that is the definitions article.
I think this order will be welcomed by all those who have pressed for legislation to safeguard the right of the public to have access to the countryside. It will also prove of benefit to the farming community. It goes a long way towards reconciling the increasing demand for recreation in the countryside, which has to be balanced with the need for agriculture. It is in that spirit that I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I embark upon what I have to say, I must apologise for the length of the speech I am driven to make. I have tried to reduce it, but find I cannot do so without failing to do justice to my argument. The Bill has been widely misunderstood and widely distorted, and it is right that I should seek to put the record straight.
This is an important Bill and it is urgently needed. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the need, for the reasons which I will give, but it is possible to exaggerate its effects and therefore distort its contents. May I begin by quoting from a recent leading article in the New Law Journal, which gets it exactly right in this respect—and I hope that if I do quote I shall not be

29
accused of giving any personal or subjective bias to what it says. The article read as follows:
"The myths and exaggerations are already forming around the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill and need to be dispelled. The reality is that the Bill is not an assault on the family or the institution of marriage. It does not presage the return of fault-based divorce, nor would its enactment create a new class of destitute jobless first wives on the breadline while their husbands' second families live in luxury.
"Indeed the practical effect of the new measure, when implemented, is likely to disappoint, or alternatively assuage the fears of those who expect it to introduce dramatic changes in the way the courts deal with the financial aftermath of divorce.
"The Bill brings together proposals of three Law Commission and one Scottish Law Commission reports, and adds a dash of procedure inspired by the Lord Chancellor's Department, not least to attempt to unravel the jurisdictional problems that Richards v. Richards revealed".
Lest anyone should think that I have introduced this measure out of my own ideas, let me reassure them. Apart from Part V and the miscellaneous section Part VI, there is nothing in this Bill which has not been proposed by the Law Commission. There is nothing in this Bill proposed by the Law Commission which has not gone through the full procedure of working paper, consultation, reconsideration and publication of final reports—the full and proper methodology which law reform in an important field is now recognised as requiring. This is not—if I may contradict a religious programme—Lord Hailsham's Bill; it is a Law Commission Bill backed by the Government.
The Bill embodies the substantive recommendations of Law Commission Reports Nos. 112,116 and 117. It does not alter the grounds of divorce as laid down by the Act of 1969 (now consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973). It does not pre-empt the consultation paper recently issued by the Booth Committee, which has not yet gone beyond the consultation stage.
I said a moment ago that the reforms were urgent. Within literally a week or two of taking office in 1979, I discovered one outstanding difference between my first term of office as Lord Chancellor which began in 1970 and my present term of office still continuing in 1983—the complaints of the injustices alleged to arise from the law of divorce. This was not surprising. The law of divorce had been altered in 1969, and by 1979 the consequences were beginning to be felt as the vastly increased number of broken marriages began to accumulate.
I need not remind your Lordships of the nature of the reforms of 1969. By that statute, which I criticised at the time in another place, irretrievable breakdown was substituted as the one ground for dissolution, in place of the old grounds which were largely based on fault. It was done, at least in part, on the initiative of the Church of England in a booklet called Putting Asunder. Whether or not I was right to criticise the Bill does not now arise. But I recall that I said then that it was brought forward very largely on the advice of the Churches, and in particular the Church of England, and would greatly increase the number of divorces. It has, in fact, done so. For the present, at least, it is enough to say that the decision taken in 1979 is irreversible.
Lest anyone should doubt my own views on the subject—and some foolish people have—let them now be placed on record. I believe that the family is the
30
solid foundation upon which all human society should be built. I believe that the ideal of marriage is one man and one woman during their joint lives. When it occurs, I regard divorce as a misfortune—even a disaster—for both parties, and especially for the children of the marriage. I believe that people flounce out of marriage too often, little recognising and seldom understanding the abiding consequences of dissolution. Marry in haste, they used to say, repent at leisure. Divorce in haste, say I, and the consequences will be with you for the greater part of your life to come.
Nonetheless, one must be realistic. The Churches need not celebrate marriages of which they disapprove, and each possesses distinctive and divergent views as to the nature and degree of dissolubility of the vinculum of marriage applicable to their own communicants. One Church has a distinctive law of nullity which differs substantially from that of the secular law of the land. But whereas the Churches have jurisdiction over their own communicants, they have no jurisdiction over others and the state has no such option.
We have a single status with which we have to contend. We have marriages between Catholics, Protestants, or mixed, Jews and Quakers, Moslems and atheists, agnostics and believers, first marriages, or marriages of divorced persons who may, in theory, have anything between one and 10 former partners between them. All partake of the civil status of marriage. To one and all the English laws of nullity and dissolution apply. The children of all are entitled to maintenance, and the laws of maintenance and property of divorced partners must apply to all, irrespective of creed. Broken marriages are with us. We are not in the field of moral theology. We are in the field of law and social policy and, although there is room for many views in this free country about the nature, dissolubility and sanctity of marriage—or any particular marriage—there is only room for one law of divorce and one law of the consequences which follow from divorce.
It soon became apparent to me in 1979 that those affected by divorce resolved themselves into three divergent classes. There were the children—innocent, silent, inarticulate, and almost unrepresented. There were the husbands and—where they existed, as they usually do—their second or subsequent wives. There were the divorced wives, in the nature of things less numerous, and therefore less vocal, than the husbands and their second spouses. After divorce, wives remarry less often, and, since their claims to maintenance disappear on remarriage, not all of those who are divorced remain upon the field of battle.
Each group had a case. Each had an irrefutable case in many instances. Each underestimated the strength of the case on the other side, because each generalised from his or her own experience. Each blamed the law, usually unfairly, because what each was complaining of in substance was not, in fact, the fault of the law but the result of the facts of life. The husbands complained of the fact that one income will not keep two families, and the continuing expense of a former partner proved an unwelcome burden on the resources of a second union. The divorced wives complained because, in the nature of things, a wife's earning capacity is

31
diminished or perhaps destroyed by marriage, especially when her renewed earning capacity after dissolution is further impaired or rendered impossible by responsibility for the children and their care and control.
So I referred the matter to the Law Commission and have since had recourse to the Booth Committee, in the circumstances that, though the law could not alter the facts of life, it need not unnecessarily exaggerate the hardships inevitably involved. Above all, we have no right to use the law concerning the sequelae of divorce as a tool to impose on others our own moral theology regarding the dissolubility of marriage which, by that time, ex hypothesi has already taken place in the form of dissolution.
There are three separate groups of proposals in this Bill with which I must deal in this speech. I shall not deal in detail with Part IV (Scotland), Part VI (Miscellaneous) or, except cursorily—for it is technical, and more suitable for the Committeee stage—Part V. I shall therefore deal primarily with Parts Ito III. I shall deal with them in inverse order of their importance and discussibility, and not in the order in which they occur in the Bill. The first, which in my view need hardly be discussed at all on Second Reading because it is so obviously right, is contained in Law Commission Report No. 117 under the heading "Financial relief after foreign divorce". The report recommended, and Part III of the Bill provides, that the High Court should have power to entertain applications for financial provision and property adjustment, notwithstanding the existence of a prior foreign divorce, annulment or legal separation. This is particularly important where there are assets in this country.
Its advantages are limited to persons domiciled or habitually resident in England and Wales and to persons whose matrimonial home was in England or Wales (in which case the powers are still further circumscribed). It is highly technical and, because the other parts of the Bill are so much more important, I shall for the moment leave it at that. I submit that it is obviously required and fills an obvious gap in our existing legislation. The jurisdiction is heavily circumscribed and is wholly within the discretion of the court.
Part IV of the Bill contains Scottish provisions which correspond to those for England and Wales in Part III, to provide in Scotland for financial relief after foreign divorce. The nature of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Scottish courts by Part IV will be rather different, but the differences arise on the whole from the fact that we are dealing with dissimilar systems of law on either side of the border. The purpose of the reform in each case is the same.
The second and in my view the second least contentious part of the Bill is Part I. I say "in my view" because, strangely enough, owing I believe largely to the fact that one religious body failed to respond to the invitation to participate in discussions on the consultation paper, and did not even bother to notice the report till a year after its publication, it has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented.
The case was fully argued in Law Commission Report No. 116 and, if only the critics had taken the
32
trouble to read it, I cannot help thinking that a great deal of muddled thinking and acres of print could have been saved. At the time the report was issued it received almost unanimous approval. There are two provisions in this part of the Bill. The less contentious is in Clause 2. This gives the court a slightly enlarged discretion to admit petitions for nullity of a voidable marriage after three years from the date of its celebration where the petitioner himself was suffering from mental incapacity during the first three years. This slightly amends what is now Section 13(2) of the consolidating Act of 1973 which was derived from my own Nullity Act of 1971, and this provision is based on the revised view of the Law Commission contained in paragraghs 3.1 to 3.6 of the Law Commission Report No. 116. Their revised opinion was based on principle and on experience. I do not myself believe the point to be contentious and, at least at present, I do not intend further to enlarge on it.
More important in Part I is Clause 1, which amends and replaces what is now Section 3 of the 1973 Act, although the substantive law goes back to the 1969 legislation. The 1969 legislation imposed a discretionary bar against proceedings for divorce within three years of marriage, a discretionary bar which can be lifted in cases of "exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent". Contrary to what has been suggested, the Bill does not make divorce easier. The ground for divorce remains the same; namely, irretrievable breakdown, provable only by establishing one of five alternative states of fact. It deals solely with the time which must elapse after the celebration of the marriage before the presentation of a petition by either party. The Bill, following the views expressed in paragraph 2.32 of the report, imposes an absolute bar of one year in place of a discretionary bar of three. This might be considered illogical since the comparable Scottish law without social harm imposes no bar at all. What is obvious, however, to me and what was obvious to the commission, was that the discretionary bar must go and that any bar which remained would have to be absolute and, being absolute, would have to be shorter. The inescapable choice is between no bar at all, as in Scotland, and an absolute bar, as in the Bill. The status quo is a non-starter. After consultation, the proposal, as I said, received almost unanimous support among those consulted.
I now summarise the arguments against the discretionary bar. These are, first, that it is conceptually absurd and therefore unacceptable; second, that it is incapable of enforcement consistently or in practice at all and has been recognised as such by the judiciary; thirdly, that it can be circumvented by a simple device; and, fourthly, that in practice it has increased bitterness, done harm to the children and reduced the chances of conciliation because it encourages use in the petition of damaging and sometimes inaccurate allegations of a painful kind.
It is conceptually unacceptable because it assumes that there exists a normal standard of depravity which should be condoned and accepted despite irretrievable breakdown and which is capable of precise definition, or a similarly normal standard of hardship with the same characteristics. On reflection, I should have thought it was obvious that there are and can be no such normal standards, and since the question arises

33
only on proof of irretrievable breakdown the whole apparatus is nonsensical, anyway.
It is incapable of consistent application because in the absence of a precise definition of exceptional depravity or hardship each judge will apply, and does apply, his own subjective and different standards to a particular case. In practice it cannot be enforced at all, because petitioners simply put in allegations of such an extreme character that, in the absence of sufficient scrutiny, applications nearly always succeed, and once the proceedings are commenced they are commenced and the doors close behind the petition. Where petitioners resort to this device, conciliation often becomes impossible. Where they do not, they circumvent the law by proceedings in the first place for judical separation, following their petition for that with one of dissolution.
I must add here, sadly, that I heard it seriously suggested by one eminent ecclesiastic that the parties should be compelled to use judicial separation as a separate device. I must say that that cock will not fight and that no practising lawyer would accept the ecclesiastic's view. No doubt judicial separation must be an option for a petitioner who believes in the indissolubility of his or her own marriage, but for those who do not it is a straitjacket which it is unjust to force upon them.
I must add my note on the Scottish experience, which is illuminating in the extreme. As I have said, the Scots have no time bar at all and, although the matter has been referred to them more than once, have resolutely refused to accept the English rule. As a race, I would respectfully have said to my ecclesiastical critics that the Scots would not be particularly complimented by the implied criticism that they are less zealous than the English for the Christian religion and doctrine, the stability of marriage or the sanctity of family life. Indeed, they would have facts on their side which are best illustrated by a graph on page 56 of the Law Commission Report. The time bar may, indeed does, defer divorce in some cases. It does not deter it. The graph establishes this conclusively. What the time bar does is to increase the number of "limping marriages"—that is, marriages which have broken down irretrievably but are not yet dissolved. A more potent stimulus to immorality outside marriage I can scarcely imagine. That the Church of England should in the report of the Board for Social Responsibility on this set of proposals thus encourage adultery or fornication is not a particularly good cause for Christians to advocate or adopt.
It may be asked, if this be so, why have a time bar at all? Logically this is a good question which is dealt with in paragraphs 2.12 to 2.15 of the report. The answer to this is that, under present procedures, a reduced time bar will not in fact impose intolerable hardship and is unlikely to operate at all, except in a relatively insignificant minority of cases. There are, however, certain abuses of the law of marriage—for instance, in order to obtain nationality —which might be encouraged, particularly in London, if there were no bar at all. Though the commission originally sounded a rather uncertain note in their consultation paper, I believe with their final report that an absolute bar for one year is the right rule for England and Wales. Otherwise I must say at once that I would get
34
rid of it altogether and conform to the Scottish practice.
I now come to what is the most important of the proposals in the Bill. It is more important because it affects more people, and in particular the two classes of person I referred to at the beginning of this speech. It amends Section 25 of the consolidating Act of 1973 which lists the matters to which the court must have regard in exercising its powers in relation to the financial settlement following divorce. It is these which have given rise to the greatest amount of correspondence, and in which the difference between the former wife on the one hand, and the former husband and his subsequent partner on the other, have been most viciously and articulately expressed.
I must say at once—and one starts from this proposition—that fundamentally the policy of the existing Section 25 and the cases based on it is right. It is as well to remember why it is right. It is right for the following reasons: First, it is right because it recognises that the circumstances of each case vary so infinitely that it is impossible to do more in the Act than to enumerate the factors which the court should take into account in making provision, and it cannot put the court in any form of simplified straitjacket compelling it to come to a conclusion contrary to justice and commonsense.
Secondly, despite much talk by husbands condemning what they call the principle of the "meal ticket for life", it enables the court to recognise that a wife frequently—I would say in the case of a marriage of substantial duration or where normally there are young children—loses or impairs her earning capacity during a marriage of any length, while a husband normally does not, and that this effect of disparity continues after dissolution more particularly when—as again is normally the case—the children are young and remain in the care and control of the wife. This is inescapable even though it means that, though the marriage is dissolved, the ex-husband continues to have for an indefinite period some responsibility for his former partner; unless of course there are capital assets which can facilitate a clean break, or, in the absence of children, a young wife can go back to earning at something like her own level before too long. It is in this connection that it is no good talking of a "meal ticket for life" where there has been a cruel or unfaithful husband and an innocent and caring wife who has lost her earning capacity and has care of young children. There is a continuing moral responsibility which the law must recognise. May I just add here how deeply I resent the suggestion put forward by some one-purpose pressure groups that the intention of this Bill is to deprive such wives of their existing rights. My intention is to preserve them, and I believe the courts will act the same way.
Thirdly, the existing section is right because, although it provides that conduct can have some influence on financial settlement and that it would be repugnant to conscience if it did not do so, the section, as interpreted by case law, makes it quite clear that nothing—I repeat "nothing"—would justify a return by the courts to the degrading and squalid experience which we can all remember as "the defended cruelty case".

35
While these elements in the old section are right, I very rapidly came to the conclusion, shared independently, as it now appears, by the Law Commission, that there are defects in it which urgently require amendment, and in their practical operation give rise to legitimate complaints. The first, and the least controversial, of these relates to financial provision for the children of the dissolved marriage. Subsection (1) of the new Section 25 (contained in Clause 3 of the Bill) provides that in exercising its powers first consideration is to be given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not achieved the age of 18. The old section did not give the same degree of priority to the children of the marriage—even though the courts in practice may to some extent have done so. We have, however, continued the old subsection (4) which qualified this with respect to children not physically the children of one or both parents.
My Lords, the second, and most important, change is to the last words of the old subsection (1). This limited the discretion of the court by enacting that, in exercising its powers, the court should place the parties, so far as it is practical, and, having regard to their conduct, just to do so, in the financial position in which they would have been had the marriage not broken down. This is to set the court an impractical and wholly undesirable objective. The basis of divorce being the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, it is neither practicable nor desirable to attempt to put the financial eggs back in their shells. That would involve the courts in a miracle worthy of my reputed predecessor, Saint Swithin, who is reported to have done just that on a famous occasion. It is this which has led to the most anomalous of decisions and given rise to the legitimate element in the "meal ticket for life" complaint.
The comparable passage in the Bill requires the court to have regard to the standard of life enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage, and of course to their means. Given that divorce has taken place, the so-called principle of the clean break in appropriate cases, but only, I repeat, in appropriate cases, is the only practical and by far the most desirable outcome. Say a broken marriage lasts six months without children, or where capital assets allow a clean and permanent break, prolonged maintenance and repeated variations can only, in my judgment, lead to prolonged bitterness. At present the courts cannot of their own motion give effect to this principle. If you are going to base dissolution on irretrievable breakdown, the sooner the parties can be parted, if they can be parted without injustice, the better. The new law alters the status quo by enjoining the court to take into account the possibility and the justice of the clean break principle where it is applicable at all, and provides consequentially, reversing a previous decision under the old law, that a prayer for further relief may be dismissed at the suit of either party. I am sure that this is both wise and just. Given that divorce takes place there must come a time, at least in a minority of cases, but I would suggest only a comparatively small minority, when the financial dependency should come to an end. In an extreme case this time may come relatively soon, but in other cases only after a period of years.
36
The third respect in which the old Section 25 is altered is, I believe, more verbal than real. The courts early took advantage of the manifest policy of the old Act of 1969 that the old "defended cruelty" cases, to which I referred a moment ago, should not be resurrected under another name. This decision was embodied in a reported case known to lawyers, after the name of the parties, as Wachtel. But for a time after the decision there was a tendency to treat certain phrases in the judgment as if they constituted an amendment to the plain wording of the Act, when they were only intended as a piece of judicial rhetoric when they were uttered on the lips of Lord Justice Denning, as he then was. This, of course, it could not have been intended to do since it would have been contrary to the main terms of the Act. Recent practice, I am told, has recognised this, and it is made plain beyond doubt in Section 25(2)(g) of the Act, as it would be inserted by the present Bill, which provides that the court is only to take conduct into account if the conduct is such that the court considers that it would be inequitable to disregard it. This is in effect slightly more restrictive than the wording of the old Act, but slightly less restrictive than the judicial rhetoric "gross and obvious" of Wachtel might lead one to suppose if taken out of context.
My Lords, I come now to Part V of the Bill, which differs in character from the first four parts. Part V is entirely about the machinery of justice. Its main thrust is to improve the distribution and transfer of business between the High Court and county courts, and to abolish the rule that, if defended, matrimonial causes must automatically be transferred to the High Court. There is also a transfer of rule-making powers to what has hitherto been called the Matrimonial Causes Rule Committee.
These provisions about distribution and transfer represent the policy I have decided upon following the responses to a consultative paper we issued last January. That paper canvassed two alternative options. One was to improve and rationalise the present distribution of business between the High Court and the county courts. The other was to amalgamate the family jurisdiction of the High Court and county courts by creating a Family Court, although not at that stage one which would have included the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts. The response to that consultation was not all one way. A majority of those who replied were in favour of the Family Court, though many of those who took this view regretted that I was not going further and proposing the creation of a new Family Court with exclusive jurisdiction in all family matters. A minority expressed the view that it would be wrong to take family business away from the High Court, and that to do so would appear to downgrade it, whereas it was said that in reality a good deal of family work is some of the most important of all the work done by the High Court.
I myself have never concealed the fact that I am attracted by the concept of a Family Court, though I do not believe it would usher in the millennium in the way that some of its supporters seem to suppose. I have also been impressed by the views of those replying to my consultative paper who regretted the fact that the paper did not canvass the possibility of

37
including the jurisdiction of the magistrates. Given the continued strength of support for the idea of a comprehensive court with exclusive jurisdiction in all family matters, I have agreed with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that we should now re-examine the idea of a unified family court, starting with a detailed study of the resource implications in terms of finance, manpower and accommodation.
In the meantime, I am anxious to meet the main criticisms that have been made about the way in which family business is distributed between the High Court and the county courts. In the present Bill, therefore, I have decided to proceed on the lines of the first option in the consultative paper. The elements of the scheme are very simple. First, the rule that a divorce or other matrimonial cause automatically transfers to the High Court on becoming defended is abolished. Secondly, the criteria according to which family business is distributed and transferred between the High Court and county courts will he set out in directions given by the President of the Family Division with the Lord Chancellor's concurrence: that is, Clause 31. Clauses 32 and 33 make general provision to facilitate transfer, the powers for which will be exercised in accordance with the President's directions. "Family business" is defined by Clause 26 as all the business which is assigned exclusively to the Family Division of the High Court. That assignment is, itself, alterable by subordinate legislation under the Supreme Court Act 1981, so that it will be possible to alter the scope of these new transfer provisions without the need for primary legislation.
I hope that this scheme, which should ensure the maximum flexibility of transfer between the High Court and county courts, will go a long way to ensuring that the right cases come before the right judges, and I am confident that it will eliminate the vagaries of the present system. Much will, of course, depend on the contents of the President's directions, and that is something on which we must work together in the coming months. Finally, the powers of the Matrimonial Causes Rule Committee are extended to cover all family business.
A number of the clauses of Part V, for example Clauses 28 to 30 and 35, make no significant change in the law but have simply been carried over into the Bill, with little or no amendment, from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1967 so as to facilitate in due course the total repeal of that Act.
I should perhaps mention one thing which is not in the Bill because it may be that some of your Lordships will have hoped to see something about it; that is, the topic of conciliation in matrimonial proceedings. Let me say first that I heartily support the principle of conciliation. It is of course better and more civilised for people to resolve their differences amicably than to fight them out, though in the context of divorce the interests of the children need to be watched. The real issues over conciliation are about methods and funding.
I must, however, emphasise one point. This Bill is not a necessary vehicle for advancing the cause of conciliation. Quite apart from the fact that it would be premature to bring provisions into it in advance of
38
decisions on the report, the cause of conciliation does not need primary legislation to promote it. It needs people with skill and dedication, it needs money and it may need changes in procedure and practice, which can be effected by rules of court and other subordinate legislation. This latter aspect is being examined by the Committee on Procedure in Matrimonial Causes under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Booth, which issued a substantial consultation paper a few months ago. I hope, therefore, that no noble Lord will attribute the silence of the Bill on this topic to a lack of interest or activity on the part of the Government or myself.
I am conscious of having taken up a great deal of your Lordships' time, but I do not think I could have presented the terms of the Bill more shortly, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.55 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor need apologise for the length of his speech in view of the complexity and importance of this Bill. Indeed, if I may say so, we were forewarned when on First Reading he read the Long Title of the Bill, which achieved a record for worthy inclusion in the "Guinness Book of Records", if that were not an unsuitable place for so important a pronouncement.
I respectfully agree with the opening words of the noble and learned Lord that the family is the solid foundation of society. Further, I believe that to maintain and support the family is a primary duty of Government—alas, too often neglected in this day and age. The Bill we are now considering affects a very large number of families—husbands, wives and children—in our community. I doubt whether I have received such a large postbag on a Bill as I have on this since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House. I have to say that a great deal of it comes from one source—the supporters of the Campaign for Justice in Divorce. I make no complaint about that. I have also received serious and substantial representations, some of them critical of the Bill, from the rights of women organisation, the one-parent families organisation, the Children's Centre, and also a helpful briefing from the Family Policies Centre. What has been communicated by them indicates that we are to have a pretty lengthy Committee stage, and if there are any Whips present—I see one—no doubt that will be notified to the appropriate quarters so that we shall not have too much impatience reflected by the Government Chief Whip, in his own inimitable fashion, when the matter comes to the Committee stage.
One of the difficulties mentioned by some of the organisations is concern about the rise in the number of divorces since the Divorce Law Reform Act 1969 came into force in 1971. That has given rise to concern, possibly legitimate concern, about the future of the family. But I do not think there is any actual evidence that more easily obtainable divorce has in fact led to more marital breakdowns. Divorce is the end result of the breakdown of a marriage, not its cause. When that has happened in a way the divorce itself becomes the least important part of the

39
proceedings. When legal aid for undefended divorces was withdrawn—a step for which I take responsibility—legal aid remained available for financial relief and matters relating to children. These are the problem areas and, not surprisingly, they constitute the crucial elements in the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord indicated.
One of the difficulties that we are facing is a certain inadequacy of information about important matters, particularly when we are considering financial provisions; that is to say, much more information is needed about the cost of bringing up children. That is especially important in considering the circumstances of children living in one-parent families.
If and when the Bill comes into force, we believe that it will be of great importance to ensure that provison is made for continuous monitoring of its operation, particularly the parts dealing with the financial consequences of divorce. In this context perhaps I may be permitted to remind the noble and learned Lord of the provisions of Section 105 of the Children Act 1975 which require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament every five years:
"a report on the operation… of the Act… and… institute such research as is necessary to provide the information for those reports".
That is an important precedent. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will perhaps comment on this either at the end of this debate or later as a precedent which should be followed in view of the uncertain impact at present of the financial provisions of the Bill.
There is a geat deal of concern in certain quarters about the so-called clean-break provisions of the Bill. However, it is claimed on the Bill's behalf that a clean break to end financial liability between spouses following divorce would not apply where children are involved. When we come to consider the detail of the Bill we shall want reassurance that that is clearly spelled out. The presence of children in the family surely makes a clean break impossible. After all, parents cannot divorce their children.
So far as concerns the proposal that wives should become more self-supporting, we should consider the fact that at the time of divorce most wives are not in a position to be so. In the Committee we shall examine very carefully whether the Bill will fetter the discretion of judges and registrars to decide whether short-term maintenance or a clean break is appropriate in a particular case. If they have that discretion it may be that the effect of the Bill will not be as fierce as some critics have indicated. I think that it is right that we should bear in mind that wives do suffer serious economic disadvantages from marriage itself, as well as from divorce.
Mostly—although there are many exceptions —wives are still expected to put their jobs and their economic independence second to the interests of their husband. They are still the principal carers of children, the elderly and other dependent relatives. Few in those circumstances can manage to keep a full-time job throughout their marriage. Many women are prevented from taking paid employment outside the home because of the wholly inadequate day nursery facilities at the present time. Opportunities for training
40
and retraining are limited. Sadly, women in general still do not enjoy equality of opportunity and pay at work. No doubt my noble friend Lady Lockwood will enlighten us on this matter when she addresses the House.
Therefore, while it may be right—as the Bill does—to consider the wife's earning capacity when there are no children of the marriage, I submit that it is not realistic to expect a mother raising children to take steps to increase her earning capacity. When the Bill is discussed in detail we shall have to consider the impact of the provisions of subsection (2) (a) in the amended Section 25 of the 1975 Act—namely, that regard shall be had to the earning capacity of the mother in the marriage and:
"any increase in that capacity which it would… be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire".
It is simple to state but not easy for many wives to achieve.
The reassuring provision in the Bill is its pronouncement that the first consideration in the financial provisions will be financial support of young children. That will be generally welcomed in the House. The Children's Legal Centre, however, which has communicated with me, casts serious doubts on whether the Bill achieves that aim. We shall have to consider that in due course. There may indeed be something to be said for giving the children the right themselves to apply to the court independent of the parent or the guardian in certain circumstances. Maintenance as a child's right would concentrate the court's attention on the child's needs—although I venture to think that most judges and registrars will be most concerned about that. Unhappily it is the case sometimes that neither the father nor the mother has much concern about the children. I recollect the father who said: "If it was not for the children, my wife and I would have been divorced years ago. She will not have them and I will not have them". That, I trust, is a very unusual condition.
The new Section 25(1) in Clause 3 perhaps covers too narrow a limit when it speaks of:
"first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family"—
and then it adds—
"who has not attained the age of eighteen".
Many children necessarily remain dependent on their parents beyond the age of 18 for educational, medical and other needs. Perhaps this is a matter for adjustment in Committee.
Some fear has been expressed about the impact of the new Section 25(2)(g) and the duty to have regard to:
"the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it".
There is a fear that that will reopen the unhappy disputes about behaviour and conduct which have so long in the past prolonged divorces: increase the likelihood of contested hearings; and perhaps cause grave damage to any possibility of a long-term relationship between the parents and the children. Perhaps we can revert to that in the Committee stage of the Bill. It certainly is desirable that we should avoid as far as possible the creation of discord in this already difficult field.

41
The noble and learned Lord dealt in devastating fashion with the criticisms that are made about Clause 1 of the Bill which will substitute for the present three-year requirement an absolute bar during the first year of the marriage of the possibility of a petition for divorce being available. I confess that I am in full sympathy with the noble and learned Lord's criticism of the present language of the law, the present provision that if a party wants to petition for divorce within three years they can do so, but must show exceptional hardship or depravity. In the past many judges have condemned that; and, if I may say so, it is gratifying to see among the list of speakers today judges of great experience in this field. No doubt they will give us the benefit of their own experience of dealing with these matters.
I am bound to say that my own inclination is to support some time restriction before divorce proceedings can be brought. I think that in the interests of public policy it is important that there should be a limited period of experience for the newly married. I venture to think that it could well devalue the institution of marriage if divorce were readily obtainable within days of the marriage taking place. Therefore, I favour a time restriction. I certainly agree with the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord and by the Law Commission that the law would be simpler and more comprehensible if it asserted the general policy by means of an absolute bar upon divorce during the first year of the marriage. I am not dogmatic as to whether the period should be one year or two years. I am inclined to the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord and the commission that,
"where the spouses' incompatibility is revealed during the early days of marriage, the balance of social advantage clearly lies with the speedy termination of the marriage".
I do not think that I should like to be quite as speedy as they are in Scotland about these matters without there being any great harm to the public or indeed the private morals of Scotland. I think that a year's waiting time is a helpful suggestion.
I conclude by referring to the matter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt with at the end of his speech; namely, the need for conciliation. If he will allow me to say so, I confess that I was not greatly reassured by what the noble and learned Lord said. I can quite see that it might be difficult to make a statutory provision requiring conciliation. Compulsory conciliation is indeed almost a contradiction in terms. But the ready availability of conciliation services has already proved itself in different parts of the country—in Bristol, and in other cities. Even if conciliation would not save a marriage—though it might do so in some cases, with second thoughts—conciliation conducted by neutral and independent conciliators can reduce much of the bitterness in divorce in the drawing up of agreements on custody access, and even financial settlements.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will now really take this matter seriously. If I may say so without impertinence to the noble and learned Lord, lip-service is not enough. Public finance is needed. Most of the people who do the work do it either for nothing or for most inadequate reward. I do not think that what I suggest would impose a tremendous burden upon the Exchequer. Therefore, I hope that
42
before we finish the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can at least give us an assurance that he will have a go at the Treasury—as I venture to suspect he has done from time to time in the past—to see that this important aspect of conciliation is provided for, as I, too, tried to do in my own time.
As the 1966 Law Commission Report, The Field of Choice, expressed it:
"When a marriage has irretrievably broken down it should be possible for the empty legal shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness and the minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation.".
Those are indeed notable words. We believe that conciliation and the efforts of conciliators could help greatly to achieve that purpose.
5.16 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, the issues with which this Bill deals touch deeply held and often conflicting views about family life and about the relationship between private and public morality, and therefore raise strong feelings. For example, feelings have been aroused among women who have feared, happily mistakenly—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has reassured us on this point—that the Bill was intended to strengthen the husband's hand against his wife in respect of maintenance. I do not regard this debate as a proper occasion for contributing to such discussions; nor do we in the Alliance regard the proposals of the Bill as a subject for party politics.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has set an excellent example in his urbane, tolerant, and most helpful discussion of the purposes and content of the Bill. The Bill stems from some of the major changes in family law which were shaped by the English Law Commission in its early days under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. In part, those changes represented an adjustment to the silent social revolution which has taken place in the family as an institution as a result chiefly of demographic developments and of the movement of wives towards equality with their husbands.
In considering the Bill it is helpful to have in mind some aspects of this transformation, because in order to support the family we must understand it. First, changes in the last 40 years in the sex ratio and in the propensity to marry have given women equality of opportunity to marry. We have a high proportion of the population marrying, and until very recently they did so at younger and younger ages. That, combined with the fall in adult mortality, has greatly increased the duration of marriage, so that for the average couple it has become an institution which lasts for 45 years.
To put these points in more dramatic terms, I would say that Professor Anderson has calculated that the cohorts born in 1861—the grandparents of the interwar years—were the first people in our history a majority of whom would know all their grandchildren. Today men can expect to live for 14 years and women for 23 years after the birth of their last grandchild. The lifespan of the family has indeed lengthened as the number of divorces has risen.
It is not possible fully to assess the significance of the huge increase in divorce and to compare the experience of the present with that of the past, because there

43
are no means of knowing what proportion results from greater access to divorce as a consequence of the growth of equality before the law, and what proportion represents a greater willingness among people at large to seek divorce as a cure for the ills of marriage.
The lengthening of the duration of marriage gives at least the statistical perspective upon the estimate that somewhere around one-third of married couples will soon be experiencing divorce. It is not possible to predict whether this proportion will increase or decline. Good arguments can be put either way, but there are certainly no signs of a flight from marriage given the very high re-marriage rates of divorced persons. We know that a high proportion of women remarry. What we do not know is whether those who remarry are the mothers with the larger number of younger children. One may reasonably suspect that they are the very people who fail to reconstitute themselves easily into new families.
From these Benches, we shall not oppose the Bill, and we are glad to accept most parts of it. However, we feel some disappointment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has mentioned the inadequate factual information that is available for law reform in this area. In its response to its own discussion paper on the financial consequences of divorce, the Law Commission referred to this difficulty. It said:
"Even the most basic questions about the extent to which the existing private law imposing financial obligations on spouses does, in reality, provide any significant support for their families cannot be answered. We do not know how much maintenance is in fact ordered to he paid by the courts. Still less do we know in what proportion of cases such payments are actually made, and for what period of time they continue".
So we are in a position—under what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor called a degree of urgency—of legislating about maintenance in complete ignorance of the social reality we are attempting to regulate. That is not an adequate basis for effective law reform. Indeed, when the legislation was being framed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Law Commission considered a proposal to monitor the financial consequences of the legislation that we have been discussing. Unhappily, that proposal fell through. but had it been undertaken there is no doubt that many of the difficulties now being experienced would never have arisen. It is a considerable disappointment that there is no provision in the Bill for monitoring its results. This is in sharp contrast to the monitoring arrangements proposed in its draft Bill by the Scottish Law Commission. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to consider the desirability of providing monitoring.
It is perhaps an oddity of family law reform that the area about which there is considerable and detailed knowledge of the wishes of the population at large—that is in respect of matrimonial property—is the one area in which the Government rejected legislation. They are now proposing legislation about an area of which everyone agrees we are ignorant. It is desirable that we get rid of the requirement in the legislation under which parties must be put in the financial position that they would have enjoyed had the divorce not occurred. That would necessarily put judges, who are, in any event, engaged very frequently
44
in judgments of Solomon in this area, in a position in which they had to speculate in the absence of effective information. I suspect that the use of phrases in the present Bill of the order of earning capacity and future earning capacity will involve very similar speculation.
It is desirable beyond dispute to make the welfare of the children a first consideration when dealing with maintenance. But this is not, in practice, as simple as it sounds. It was stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that the notion of a clean break would be quite inappropriate where there was a mother with young children. I think that we would all agree about that. But when you face the other ranges of circumstance, from the young couple, both with jobs, who have no children, to the couple in which the wife has never worked and who has now reached her mid-60s, you move across the arc. You face the most formidable of all problems in administrative justice. No formula can possibly secure just results. There must be the exercise of very wide discretion to achieve justice in individual cases. That justice must also depend to a large extent on very much greater knowledge of the consequences of maintenance awards than we possess at present.
There has been a small amount of academic research, all of which points in the direction of confirming that little has changed since the publication, in the late 1960s, of the Graham Hall report, which contained a small-scale study of maintenance in the divorce court, and the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families in 1974. Both of those reports and all of the present studies show that the problem is not so much what law we ought to apply, as the fact that in a very large number of instances there is no money to apply the law to. Surveying the whole area of maintenance there will, of course, be a number—but it will be a minority—of persons who have money, who can allocate it, and who will respect the allocations. But in a large number of cases the casualties of broken homes must be borne by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer in fact carries them and has carried them since the first Poor Law Act 1601. All that has changed has been the circumstances in which the payments are made.
The Finer Committee on One-Parent Families showed that maintenance contributed only 12 per cent. of the total amount received by one-parent families on supplementary benefit. The maintenance that came from the Supplementary Benefits Commission was the substantial, crucial element, and what came from maintenance orders and voluntary payments was marginal. I believe that this situation is the norm of what exists in this society. I do not suggest for a moment that we should consider removing the personal responsibilities of husbands or, in a very small number of cases, of wives, for maintaining their spouses. But what we must certainly do in the long run is to stop treating the institutions of the law and the institutions of social security as separate organisations with no connection with each other in this area. What we have to do is to bring the private law of family maintenance into a much better relationship with the public law of social security. That inevitably points in the direction of the family court, because the main argument of the Committee on One-Parent Families for having the family courts was precisely that the

45
social security authorities and the courts could work in effective harness.
So I am very disappointed that we make no progress in this Bill towards the family court. I certainly welcome very gladly the decision of the noble and learned Lord to set up an inquiry into aspects of the establishment of family courts, but I would again echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said about conciliation. Conciliation is urgent; it has reached the stage at which support and very small amounts of money would help it to become established, otherwise it will wither and those who are engaged in it will become frustrated, disappointed and will go elsewhere.
We all know about the admirable scheme in Bristol and of the schemes elsewhere. Not in Treasury accounting terms, but in realistic accounting terms, conciliation will save money in all kinds of ways which do not need to be listed, just as Judge Jean Graham Hall in a recent piece of research has shown the likelihood that the establishment of a family court based on the divorce county court will lead to savings in public expenditure in this area. I very much hope that one of the areas that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will investigate will be the costing of family courts and also, if possible, a cost benefit analysis of the effect of establishing a family court.
I have said enough to indicate that the Alliance welcomes the Bill because of the parts of it which are necessary and useful; that in respect of family courts its expectations have been aroused; but in respect of the financial provisions we have considerable anxiety about the future effectiveness of provisions which rest on no foundation of economic or social fact.
5.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, the historic partnership of Church and state in the life of our nation is a precious thing and has long been acknowledged by those of all faiths and of none. But as one who is not a lawyer I speak in this debate with more than usual trepidation.
However, there are few matters which affect more of our fellow citizens than those of marriage and divorce, because the family formed by marriage is the foundation for democracy and the keystone to stability and happiness for husbands, wives and children. So notwithstanding a recent unfortunate lapse, to which the noble and learned Lord has referred so graphically and so understandably, a lapse which I personally much regret, it has been the most natural thing in the world that in recent years the Church should have been involved not only in examining Christian teaching about marriage and how it should be exercised within its own membership, but also in looking at the law of the state concerning divorce.
That double role is not always understood as it should be, but in a book on Marriage in Church and State, published as long ago as 1912, the author, T. A. Lacey, writing of the duty of a Christian called to the reformation of the laws of the state, said:
"In doing this he has no right to put aside what he has learnt as a Christian, and in the quality of citizenship to act as a mere natural man … But neither is he bound to insist that the laws of the State, in regard to marriage or in regard to anything else, shall conform exactly to Christian teaching. Not all subjects of the State are Christian and the State must legislate for all.".
46
It was in this spirit that in 1966 a report was presented to the then Archbishop, Lord Ramsey, entitled, Putting Asunder: a divorce law for contemporary society. This report, to which the noble and learned Lord has already referred, considered what provision should be made in civil law for divorce, and the Law Commission's response in its own report, The Field of Choice, and the consultations which followed both reports, were the basis of the 1969 Act passed by Parliament.
The central recommendation of the report, Putting Asunder,
which was implemented in the subsequent legislation, was that divorce law should be based on the concept of matrimonial breakdown as opposed to matrimonial offence. This was seen as being more in accord with the true nature of marriage and of what divorce means. It was thought that the doctrine of the breakdown of marriage ought not to lead to "divorce by consent", and that it was,
"not unworthy or incompatible with the covenant of lifelong union".
The report stated:
"In our opinion, this is a move away from superficiality towards a serious attempt to deal justly both with the complexities of the matrimonial relationship itself and with the interest of other persons upon whom the conduct of the spouses may have impinged. The social context of the family is thus recognised".
The group of people who produced Putting Asunder believed that, in putting forward this basic argument, they were assisting those who had to consider the framing of the reform of the divorce law in this country. They were not commenting on the form the Church's internal discipline should take, but on what the state ought to do to fulfil its obligations in the provision of law for marriage and divorce.
The essential consequences of such a change in the basis for divorce in civil law were, I believe, seen to be threefold: first, that the court should have a duty to inquire into what attempt at reconciliation had been made; secondly, that the trial of a divorce case should become much more of a judicial inquiry into the alleged fact and causes of the "death" of a marriage relationship, where associated questions concerning children and property could also be decided; and, thirdly, that the inquiry as to whether a marriage had irretrievably broken down should be of sufficient length and depth and that all verbally formulated grounds for divorce should disappear.
Although the law as it now stands makes the irretrievable breakdown of marrige the sole ground for divorce, it does not make provision for some of the key elements in the thinking of the report, Putting Asunder. The emphasis on reconciliation, so strong in the report, is minimal in the Act. The procedural proposals for proper inquiry into marriage breakdown have never been instituted or followed and, of course, now the sheer number of divorce petitions makes such provision hard to contemplate. However, it is perhaps worth observing that the authors of Putting Asunder gave a warning, that,
"to alter the law while leaving the method of administration as it is, would make divorce easier to obtain".
The Law Commission Working Paper No. 76 pointed out that, although the ground for divorce is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, it is not necessary for the court to be affirmatively satisfied

47
that such breakdown has occurred. On proof of one of five facts—such as adultery or cruelty—the court must grant a decree, unless it is satisfied that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably. As your Lordships all know, over 90 per cent. of all divorces are uncontested and are completed by post without the necessity for any court appearance by the applicants.
I submit that this is the background against which we need to see and assess whatever rule is made about the timing of divorce petitions. In fact, the present rule goes back to 1937. It was introduced to counterbalance the effects of some extension of the grounds for divorce. I believe that the original draft Bill contained no such restriction. In another place a clause was introduced to place an absolute bar on presentation of petitions for five years. But your Lordships' House amended this to three years with provision for cases of "exceptional hardship" or "exceptional depravity".
Nearly 30 years later in 1966 the Law Commission, following the recommendation of the report, Putting Asunder, favoured retention of the three-year rule. It said that divorce should not be so easy:
"that the parties are under no inducement to make a success of their marriage and. in particular, to overcome temporary difficulties".
Now, after the passing of another 17 years, as the noble and learned Lord has told us, the Law Commission thinks that there are strong reasons for change, the strongest of which is surely that the three-year rule seems to defer, but not to deter, divorce.
After considering five options, the commission decided in favour of the reduction of the time restriction to one year and the abolition of all exceptions. I think that we should take careful note that the commission believed that the lifting of all restrictions would have a bad effect on marriage as an institution, for it said:
"there is an obvious danger that any move which would appear to make divorce easier to obtain would be seen as eroding the stability and dignity of marriage".
However, there are many who believe that the option which the Law Commission has chosen does just that. So I hope that, in deference to those who feel strongly about the progressive erosion of the institution of marriage, during the Committee stage of this Bill we shall look very carefully at the other four options which the Law Commission considered, especially the possibility of issuing new guidelines for the courts on exceptions and of maintaining the three-year rule or possibly reducing it to two years. After all, it was this House that made a change in the Bill of 1937 which brought in the three-year rule. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate, therefore, if it were to be this House which makes a change nearly half a century later on the same matter.
I believe that there are a number of reasons why we should look very carefully at this proposal. If the basic concept underlying divorce law ought, in practice as well as in principle, to be "the irretrievable breakdown of marriage", then before such can be demonstrated, a marriage will normally need a sufficient time to get itself established. Of course, there will be some marriages which, for one reason or another, are non-starters from the outset. But surely it ought not to be beyond the capacity of the law to make
48
provision for such cases through the humane and compassionate exercise of legal discretionary powers.
Secondly, in view of the evidence that at least 25 per cent. of those who present petitions do not proceed with them to the point of obtaining a decree absolute, there are clearly a minority of petitioners who in effect are saying, "Our marriage is in a deep crisis; we can see no way forward except divorce".
Such pleas for relief and help surely indicate that the most urgent need is not so much to alter the three-year rule, as for serious consideration to be given to more adequate support for marriage growth and development, and for the appropriate professional resources to be made available to support this, as I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was suggesting.
The third reason why we should think carefully before amending the law in this way is that, as he has told us tonight, 15 months ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appointed the Matrimonial Causes Procedure Committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Booth. Judging by their consultation paper, the report of this committee is going to be far-reaching and of great significance. If the Booth committee is looking at the tension between the fundamental concept of the breakdown of marriage and the facts which are used to demonstrate breakdown then, my Lords, would it not be wiser to hold over any change until the whole package of changes likely to be proposed by the Booth committee are before us and we can assess their mutual interdependence?
The committee's provisional view is that a hearing should take place as soon after the filing of a petition as is reasonably possible, and that the parties should be brought together in a non-adversarial setting. This could be an important proposal, as indeed could be those of the Booth committee about conciliation, for they say quite categorically, "there is evidence that conciliation can lead to reconciliation, sometimes in apparently unpromising cases."
The Booth committee is looking at the whole scene. Is there not a real possibility that its report might offer us a better climate in which to think about humanising divorce procedures? Will not the one essential requirement for their proposals about a hearing and those about conciliation be time? Should we not therefore think long and carefully before making any piecemeal decision affecting the time within which petitions for divorce can be made?
Marriages have to be made in the sharing of love and of life. It is surely the duty of the community, if we wish marriages to succeed, to do all in our power to prepare the ground for success. Is it not also the duty of the community to frame its law so that couples are encouraged to make their marriage work? To do this requires both time and the commitment of the will.
I speak only for myself, and I recognise the problems of the three-year rule, but I question whether the alternative proposed is the right one at this time. I also see the need for some action on maintenance; but only, if I may say so, if we bear in mind that many divorced wives as well as divorced husbands will sadly be among the 3 million unemployed today. What might have been a reasonable and possible expectation

49
of employment in the 1960s is for many in the 1980s a sheer impossibility with the best will in the world.
I presume to hope that under the guidance and leadership of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whose passion for justice and whose compassion for the suffering we all respect, this House will look critically, and, if need be, radically at this Bill in Committee. Like the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, I do not think that this is a matter for party politics. My own hope is that we, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, can reach such an agreement on a matter of human and spiritual importance that when it comes before Members in another place they will feel that the people of England, in all their need and frailty as well as in all their great potential, will find that the law is concerned to strengthen and stabilise their marriages and their family life.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in rising to make my maiden speech in this House, I find it difficult to define in precise terms exactly how I feel at this moment. Suffice it to say that if I knew what the term was, roughly translated it would mean extremely nervous. I am also very much aware of the established conventions on these occasions. I respect those conventions, and it is not my intention to offend them in any way. Having said that, however, I recognise the task that I have set myself by choosing to make a speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. So I hope that if I stray a little from my good intentions, the House will forgive me and noble Lords will continue to show me the same friendliness and courtesy I have experienced and appreciated since becoming a Member nearly two weeks ago.
When I first read the Bill I had reservations about some of its proposals, but I was hesitant about expressing them in this House which is so richly endowed with legal expertise, feeling that my own non-legal opinions might not be considered relevant. I must confess that the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have done little to assuage those fears. However, after listening to the recent debate initiated by the most reverend Primate on the problems of crimes of violence, and hearing contributions during that debate from the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Soper, and other noble and learned Lords, I was encouraged and inspired to make this short contribution because I found that many of the remarks made in that debate coincided with my interpretation of parts of this Bill.
For example, the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his opening speech on the 15th November (at column 1156 of Hansard) said:
"Unless we can do more to strengthen families and to reduce the frightening increase in divorce and separation we shall not be getting at the roots of violence."
The Lord Chief Justice, after listing what he considered were some of the causes of violent crime, said at col. 1179:
"But on top of that there is a host of other reasons—easier divorce—soon to become easier still … with broken homes as a result, easy abortion, the Pill at the age of 11 and 12 with all that means by inference …".
Running through many other speeches in that short but extremely important debate were pleas for a return
50
to Christian standards, for a strengthening of family ties, and for more to be done here and elsewhere to assist this process.
I felt that here in this Bill was an early opportunity to perhaps begin that process. Informed opinion of many people outside this House, people involved with the implementation and effects of legislation in this field, seems to suggest that, far from assisting the achievement of the ideals expressed during that debate last week, certain aspects of this Bill might even be seen to be compounding, in part at least, some of the problems outlined by noble and learned Lords.
Indeed, Part II, Clause 3 of the Bill is unique in one respect: it seems to have united leading churchmen and organisations like the Legal Action Group, One-Parent Families, the Children's Legal Centre, and others in opposition in similar terms. One eminent Christian is reported as saying:
"This Bill does nothing to strengthen marriage and if enacted it will weaken marriage".
Another leading Christian has said:
"At a time when steps should be taken to rehabilitate the family as a stabilising influence in society, there is a danger that those people who take their basic morality from what the law permits will increasingly view marriage as a temporary contract".
The Legal Action Group says:
"The Bill will impede conciliation, create uncertainty in the law, and is unlikely to do anything significant to help dependant children who are involved in 60 per cent. of divorces".
Other organisations have made similar comments. My view is that we should listen to, and consider, those views.
I am concerned, too, about the social implications of the Bill, particularly when we consider the size of the problem. I have not time to give many statistics except one that frightens me. In 1981 159,000 children under the age of 16 in England and Wales had parents who were divorced, nearly double the number affected in 1971. If the current trend continues, it is estimated that about one in five children will experience their parents' divorce before they reach the age of 16. So, if we get it wrong at this stage, the social implications could be quite dramatic to say the least. I wonder at this point whether there was a DHSS input at the drafting stage of the Bill.
There are fears, too, in many quarters that the amendments to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 contained in Part II, Clause 3, of the Bill, could worsen the situation for many one-parent families. These doubts and others about the provisions of the Bill arise, in part, from the fact that very little reliable up-to-date information is available. Indeed, the Law Commission Report No. 112, in paragraphs 8 and 9, noted:
"One of the most serious difficulties encountered in examining any proposal for law reform in this area is that—notwithstanding a valuable study of the matrimonial jurisdiction of registrars carried out between 1973 and 1975 under the aegis of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at Wolfson College, Oxford—very little reliable … information is in fact available about the operation of the existing law.
The lack of such factual information obviously constitutes a formidable handicap to the task of law reform.".
The Commission went on to say in paragraph 11:
"it is in our view unsatisfactory that law reform should have to proceed on the basis of inadequate information about the operation of the law".

51
Because of time, I will not further develop those arguments, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that they deserve further consideration.
I recall, too, the Private Member's Bill introduced earlier this year in another place which now forms the basis of this Bill. Permission was granted for the Bill to be read a second time, but on the appointed date, 4th February, objections were raised, the Second Reading was refused and the Bill was dropped. I found myself wondering what has happened since to make this measure so urgent that that Private Member's Bill now has the full weight of the Government machine behind it so soon and is being given such a degree of priority.
So far I have not been able to find any record of debate or official response to the Law Commission's reports on Family Property (in 1978) and Illegitimacy (in 1982), and we know that the Booth committee is currently consulting the public on its proposals on matrimonial procedures. The Law Commission is in the midst of a study on the legal consequences of the present grounds for divorce, all very relevant. I quote the Lord Chancellor's remarks during a short discussion in this House on 1st February last, when he said:
"you cannot go on tinkering with the law of marriage and divorce every 10 years".—[Official Report, 1/2/83, col. 680.]
With that I agree. I should have preferred it if we could have waited for the outcome of considerations of all those excellent initiatives taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as well as the need for full-scale review of court procedures, of the need for a national conciliation service and for the possibility of Government action on the desirability of establishing family courts. I welcome the Lord Chancellor's remarks on those aspects earlier today.
I look forward with others to the Committee stage of the Bill, when, hopefully, we shall discuss in some detail those matters to which I have briefly referred. For now I wish to thank noble Lords for the patient and kind consideration that they have shown me this afternoon.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, it is always a privilege to speak first after a maiden speech and therefore to offer the maiden congratulations to the maiden speaker. I do so particularly after the noble Lord's contribution with his particular experience of social care, his ministerial experience and also the arcane experience which he had in the Whip's Office in another place. That means that my noble friends Lord Denham and Baroness Trumpington must look after their onions, if that is the right expression, and noble Lords opposite will have to be even better marshalled than they have been in the past. The noble Lord has joined us in this debate. I am sure his name will appear many times on the Paper and he will always be listened to with great respect and great attention.
It was in 1815 that William Lamb wrote to Lord Landsdowne. He said:
"I know enough of domestic inquietude not to be surprised at any step a man may take under the pressure of it".
He certainly knew what he was talking about. Though it was expressed by a man married to Caroline Lamb,
52
that was a sentiment which could equally have been echoed by many a woman of the time.
It was not until 40 years later that there was first established a new court to which was removed all the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. It took another 66 years, till 1923, before the sexes were put on a similar footing as to the grounds for divorce. It was after the Royal Commission in the 1950s, following the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady White, who will speak in this debate, that there came the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which altered the whole concept of the law of divorce with the elimination of fault and guilt.
Thus, divorce has become progressively easier over the past 130 years. Therefore, the institution of marriage, as traditionally conceived, has obviously been affected. Some of the criticism of the Bill has surely been absurdly exaggerated and, in part, grossly distorted, for society has accepted the need to provide for dissolution of marriage and the prime duty therefore is to ensure that the rules concerning the consequences of dissolution provide a fair and balanced system, especially when modern society openly accepts arrangements of living-in lovers and the children of such unions, and, in some aspects, seeks to require the law to provide rights to property and maintenance—the "palimony" syndrome, which in some quarters gains increasing acceptance. If it be that some sanctions are socially desirable so as to protect and enhance the status of marriage, it may be that the law should ever be used to enforce the legal consequences of marriage, but never the moral obligations arising out of associations outside marriage.
It is therefore understandable that the changes which were introduced by the 1969 Act and the legislation in the 1970s have not yet wholly provided a fair and balanced system of law. Like other noble Lords—indeed practically every noble Lord, I suspect—I have received massive representations, as I did following shortly after the 1973 Act. That attempted, as your Lordships will appreciate, to oblige the courts to put the parties into the same financial position after divorce as if the marriage had not broken down, while at the same time applying the new rules that guilt and fault had been eliminated.
In my view, many of these representations convincingly demonstrate some of the wholly inequitable consequences of Section 25. I accept that the people who write are usually the articulate who come from a particular section of society, but I have no reason to doubt that the
same traumas are experienced by others in other sections of society. Apart from representations, more personally influential is my own experience and that of many practitioners. There is no doubt that there have been many inequitable consequences from the operation of the 1973 Act and the obligation of the court to put the parties on the same footing as though there had been no breakdown of the marriage. This has accentuated the feeling of resentment when, in every case and whatever the circumstances, conduct has to be wholly ignored. These are the cases which arouse the most bitter resentment—where one of the parties to the marriage has caused the family life of the marriage to break into pieces, has behaved scandalously by any standard, but

53
nevertheless ends up with a handsome financial settlement and with amenities to enjoy the fruits, and sometimes of wicked wrongdoing, while the wronged party suffers loss of marriage and home and is left quite unable to create another.
By that, I do not mean returning to the old syndrome of defended divorce. But I do believe that there can be cases, and are cases, where it is only equitable for the court to take conduct into account. The breakdown of marriage, as every one of us in this Chamber realises, affects and wounds individuals more than any other experience in life—more than death, more than illness, more than financial disaster. None of those creates such pain and distress or engender such bitterness; which can be, and is, targeted upon an individual, an individual who once, even for a short time, was loved and admired. Time is usually, but not always, the only healer. I am sure that it has been the experience of other noble Lords to have heard across their tables in the Temple or in their offices the voice which says "Never, never, will I forget or forgive". But, fortunately, people do forget and people do forgive. Time is the only thing which makes that possible.
Therefore, it is always a moving and distasteful task for the practitioner in the representation or the advising of those engaged in divorce. So often parties find it difficult to consider rationally which is best for them, and indeed, what is best for their children, because they are so blinded by their own immediate unhappiness. I think that we should appreciate in this House the task which is given to the judges of the Family Division and the appellate courts—requiring the judgment of Solomon, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has said. It requires men and women of particular ability and character to man those courts; and, although they are entitled to guidance from the statute, nevertheless for justice to be done they must be given wide powers of discretion.
I turn now, if I may, to the passages in the Bill which have principally concerned the debate so far. I welcome the abolition of the "exceptional hardship and depravity" provisions. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has demonstrated, it is an impossible concept when looked at conceptually. What is "exceptional depravity" compared to "depravity"? What is the standard of cruelty where you have to find exceptional cruelty or exceptional perversion? What is perversion, apart from the obvious loopholes which have existed through alternative remedies?
I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the right reverend Prelate: a preference for the substitution of some absolute and unqualified period when proceedings are barred. The question of course is what period? This is the most difficult judgment. Let nobody underestimate the very careful review and the arguments set out by the Law Commission, nor the importance of the Scottish experience. It is clear that on the Law Commission some wanted a period of more than one year. Would it be unreasonable for mature parties—because they ought to be mature if they get to marriage, sufficiently mature to realise what they are doing—that at least the marriage be not broken for more than one year? Would it not be reasonable for persons entering into
54
the contract of marriage to accept that it cannot be broken for a period longer than one year? Personally, I am troubled if one year is sufficient. One year is sufficient to deter the sham marriage and to restrain the impulsive and ill-considered proceeding.
But in the context of the solemnity and social importance of marriage and to mark the gravity of the social contract—and I leave aside the question of sacrament—I wonder whether it ought not to be extended beyond one year. Of course, we cannot force parties to live together if there is a breakdown within that first year. Yet is it not reasonable to have a longer period? This question will be debated in Committee. I would say that the views I had expressed have been much tempered by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said in his speech proposing this debate. I saw and heard very vividly the power of the argument against either no absolute bar or one year. I think that my own view at the present time is that perhaps it should be longer than one year.
I wholeheartedly support Part II. There are many examples of injustice, particularly since the acceptance of the "living together outside marriage" provision. We have all had the letters. I remember some that I had years ago which I put before the noble and learned Lord when he became Lord Chancellor many years ago—the letter, for example, of the wife who has won the home and maintenance until remarriage, cohabiting with her lover, selling the home, moving into a more manageable house, both working. It is not fair, it is not acceptable, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be congratulated on his courage in deciding to change it. I do not believe that the provisions of this Bill affect the position of the middle-aged wife, after a long marriage, who is ill-equipped (after 20 years of bringing up children) to earn a living. She has got the right to expect—and will, I have no doubt, receive—the long-term maintenance. In those circumstances she will be protected.
However, with the proper claims of women being met and their increased participation in employment we must accept in appropriate cases the desirability of their becoming financially independent. The "clean-break" solution may be rare but it is desirable in particular cases. Even then, there are some hard cases which flow from it. Above all, the increased emphasis upon the financial support for the children must be commended. It is the children who are principally wounded by breakdown and theirs are the interests that, above all, must be safeguarded.
Some critics say that this Bill gives insufficient guidance to the courts. I do not accept that. I believe that there must remain this large sphere of discretion. The consequences of divorce are so painful, so complex and often so very different in application that, for parties to receive justice, the court must have ample discretion. The provision of the certainty of flexibility is, I think, achieved in this Bill.
I apologise to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who I understand will be winding up the debate for the Opposition, for not being able to be present here at the conclusion of the debate. I should like to say that I think that this Bill, within the limits—and I have sometimes criticised the way in which we make law in

55
this country—of the present methods of the lawmaking processes, has been sensibly and carefully prepared in response to the demonstrably unfair effects of the present law. As I have said, and repeat, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be commended and congratulated for bringing in this Bill so early in the present Parliament.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Denning; My Lords, may I second the congratulations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, to my noble friend Lord Stallard on his maiden speech, prepared with such care and research.
This topic is one with which I have been concerned for most of my time. At the beginning of this century marriage really was a lifelong institution. It conformed both in Church and state to the definition: the personal union of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others on either side for better or for worse so long as both shall live. That is how it was in 1900. There were hardly any divorces then.
Now, in my time, the structure of society has changed radically. Let me give four instances. First, the emancipation of women: at the beginning of this century the woman was subordinate to the man in law and in almost every other way, in professions, in life. Now she is free and equal, or should be. The second is the institution of marriage itself: whereas it was lifelong, now it can be terminable for irretrievable breakdown, often by consent, without any formality at all or with the barest formality.
Next, divorce was a social stigma, bringing shame and disgrace on the participants so that they failed in any appointment to anything of that kind. Now it is all right; it is no stigma at all, it is an object of sympathy for those concerned and there is the hope that they will be able to rehabilitate themselves as well as may be.
The other great change in the structure concerns the change in grounds for divorce. Until 1969 the petitioner had to prove adultery, cruelty or desertion for three years—and we would often go through days and days on trivial incidents of cruelty when both sides wanted a divorce. They fought it out at such length and at such expense, often on legal aid, because on it depended the vital questions of maintenance and custody of and access to the children. That has gone aside and, quite rightly, we now have irretrievable breakdown as the sole cause of divorce.
That brings me to this Bill. If I thought that it would in any way weaken the institution of marriage or that it would imperil it in any way I would vote wholeheartedly against it, but I see this Bill not as infringing or weakening marriage itself but as simply remedying injustices which have appeared in it.
Let me take the three-year limitation introduced by Sir Alan Herbert's Bill in 1937. The three-year limitation was a bar on a petition except when there was a case of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity. Let me tell your Lordships how it worked in practice, because I sat in many cases where such applications were made, and I gave a judgment in Bowman v. Bowman which was reported in 1949 Probate. These were the sort of cases we had. Within a few days or weeks of marriage, the wife went off to
56
her former lover and lived with him. The husband was left alone; and the wife became pregnant by her former lover. Needless to say, I granted leave at once: the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Then there was the reported case in 1980 which was heard by my learned friend Lord Justice Ormrod. There was a honeymoon, a perfectly heterosexual relationship; and after three weeks the man went off with a male cousin, committed homosexuality with him, and discarded his wife. Of course, leave was given at once to present a petition even though a few weeks only had elapsed. Those are the sort of cases in which we gave leave. If I rightly think back—and your Lordships may read my judgments—whenever the marriage had irretrievably broken down within the three years we gave leave to go on at once. Here we come to the same test as is in the modern law. If it has irretrievably broken down, then do what you can at once to rid the parties of the impossible position which they are in.
I would agree with the practice in Scotland. Do not put any time limit at all on the matter. When the marriage has irretrievably broken down, whether it is in six months, or nine months or two years, let the petition be then filed. Mark you, having that three-year or even one-year limitation does not bring the parties together again. There is no mending of the marriage: they have only to wait until the two years or the three years are up, whatever it may be. It does not deter the breakdown; it just defers the formal finding of it.
I sympathise with what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson says. In a way it is putting a mark on it, a one-year limitation. In a way I can sympathise; I do not mind it. I am quite agreeable to the Bill as it stands, but I am not sure that the better way would be to follow Scotland and put no time limit at all on it. If the marriage has irretrievably broken down, let the party petition for divorce. That is on the time limit.
The next and much more important matter is the question of maintenance for the first wife to the hardship of the second wife. This all stems from a section in the 1973 Act which provided for the order for maintenance in respect of the first wife. Imagine for the moment that the case involves an innocent wife and a guilty husband who has gone off. The duty of the court was to put the parties, so far as practicable and having regard to their conduct so to do, in the financial position in which they would have been had the marriage not broken down and if each had properly discharged his or her obligations and responsibilities to the other. Taking the instance of the innocent wife and the guilty husband who has gone off, the words of that section are imperative: you have to put the first wife in the same financial position as she would have been if the marriage had continued, so that she need not go out to work. She can go on and say, "You must pay me and keep me in such a good financial condition as if the marriage had not broken down".
That is an appalling provision when you remember that by law there has been a divorce enabling remarriage, so that the first wife has no common law claim to maintenance or to a roof over her head. The husband has married a second wife, by permission of the law, and he has all the responsibilities to her of

57
keeping a roof over her head, bringing up the children and maintaining her. He has all those responsibilities. How wrong it was, unknowingly, for Parliament to say that the husband has still got to pay the first wife just as if nothing had happened!
I have taken the case of the innocent wife. What about the much more frequent case when both parties are to blame? How far is the first wife's conduct to go in diminution of the case for maintenance? There is trouble about that with our case law. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is quite right. We had a case called Wachtel v. Wachtel. My noble and learned friend Lord Roskill was also involved. We agreed on the judgment, and what we said was that we wanted an end to all those innumerable cruelty cases when each side charged the other with cruelty, whether it was throwing a kettle at the husband or using some swear words. Those cases used to rake up pages and pages of particulars of frivolousness and they took days and days to try—nearly always at the expense of legal aid, so we all had to pay for them—simply to say who was to get the divorce which both really wanted. They were doing all that in order to have a better claim for maintenance or for access to the children.
We wanted to get rid of all that situation. Therefore we said: "Don't go into conduct at all in all those ordinary cases"—these are Lord Justice Ormrod's words, not mine—"when it is obvious and gross, because they are easy and simple to inquire into". We did not want to put it in the words of a statute. We just wanted to show that one ought not to go into all those matters. If it is the wife's fault and she has gone off, then she ought not to be entitled to maintenance. If there are children, that is another matter.
I am saying all this to show that I am very glad that the section is to be repealed about putting the wife in the same financial position. Instead there are comprehensive statements so that you are, first, to have regard to the children, provided that the husband has to pay, then see whether it is inequitable. See, also, about the earning capacity of the first wife. If she is a youngish woman she ought to go out to work. All those matters will now be left open to the court, the children being the primary responsibility.
It has been asked: is it wise to leave all that discretion to the judge? Each judge or registrar will have a different view, and so on. I do not see any way out of it. This is essentially a matter where the circumstances vary so much in every individual case that you must leave it to the individual judge to decide. The guidelines are quite clear enough and quite good enough in the proposed clause of this Bill.
I have dealt with conduct. Let me now say just a word about reconciliation. Years ago, in 1946 or thereabouts, when I was chairman of a committee, we considered all these matters of reconciliation. It is quite unreasonable, or even impossible, to operate by compulsory means. Reconciliation or conciliation must be attempted at an early stage. The right stage is before the parties go to a solicitor. Let them go first to the Marriage Guidance Council. When they go to a solicitor, let the solicitor see whether there has been an irretrievable breakdown. Let the solicitor inquire into the marriage and ask: "Isn't there a chance of you coming together? Why don't you go to a marriage
58
guidance counsellor?". That is what I think the greatest number of lawyers do now, and that is the best way of seeing what you can do to achieve a conciliation.
I do not think that any statute or any provision will do anything about it. Conciliation should be attempted at the early stages, before the marriage has broken down. It has been questioned whether our procedure has become too simple and easy. You do not now have to go to a High Court judge and go through that formality. You sign an affidavit and, if there is no objection, the divorce goes through. Having dealt with no end of undefended cases in court, which went through as mere formalities, I am quite sure that this special procedure, as it is called, this ordinary procedure, is an excellent one and is the right way to dissolve a marriage when it has irretrievably broken down.
I should like to say one word about the courts. In 1946, when I was chairman of that committee, we had a large body of evidence asking: "Ought we to have family courts specially for the purpose?" I am very glad that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that, yes, he is considering them. I hope that he will consider them and that the outcome will be that we shall have family courts.
I am not sure whether they ought to be staffed with a chairman and two laymen—a man and a woman. They ought to be differently staffed. They ought to be persons who are not too legal, with humanity and not going by all these precedents. There ought to be a tier of appeal—because these matters are so vital—dealing with all those important things such as access, custody, property and the like. There is a wealth of jurisdiction upon the subject, and I am very glad that my noble and learned friend is to look into the present system.
Sometimes, cases of the first importance are dealt with by registrars in the county courts, whereas they ought really to be dealt with by a High Court judge who is specially versed in these matters. I gather from what my noble and learned friend said that this will be looked into. However, I would make this plea, coming back from all those years ago. Is it not time that we had family courts, properly staffed, to deal with these vast and important matters which affect so many people in the land, with all their troubles which are so heartrending and difficult to deal with? You can never tell what is right or wrong. You simply hope for the best in giving one parent or other the child. There is no law about it. You have to use your discretion hoping that, in the end, your decision will be right. So I suggest that family courts should be considered for these cases. If I thought that this Bill would weaken the institution of marriage, I would vote against it at once. But this Bill will simply remedy injustices which are there and, for that reason, I wholeheartedly support it.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate because I have found myself out of sympathy with some of what appear to be the main provisions of the Bill which is before us. I listened with the closest attention to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, but I am still not entirely

59
reassured. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, kindly mentioned, some 30 years ago I introduced through the fortune of the ballot in another place the first major divorce law reform Bill, following the milestone legislation that was introduced and carried by Sir Alan Herbert in 1937. I was, of course, of a generation which was brought up on his entertaining, but profoundly serious, book Holy Deadlock.
My Bill was introduced in 1951—a critical electoral year for the Labour Party. In spite of an overwhelming majority in its favour on Second Reading, the late Herbert Morrison was fearful of the possible electoral effect in the country if it were passed. He indicated to its supporters, with great lucidity, how he would take steps to block its further progress. Abetted by the then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, he fobbed us off with one of the most divided Royal Commissions in history. I am afraid that even after the passage of the years my indignation at the way we were treated has not entirely evaporated. In consequence, legislation substituting breakdown of marriage as the primary justification for divorce had to wait, as has been mentioned several times in this debate, until 1969. Needless to say, I was happy that at long last this provision reached the statute book.
May I deal with just one or two of the matters that concern me about the Bill which is before us? I am far from happy with the proposition that there should be a one year complete bar to the presentation of a petition for the dissolution of marriage. It seems to me that this makes the worst of all possible worlds. I can understand, from the explanation very clearly given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and referred to by other noble Lords, that the three-year period, discretionary power being given to the court, is difficult to enforce. But surely a one-year period is unsatisfactory. It is neither one thing nor the other. A successful marriage—in the experience of most of us, I would suppose—demands persistence, perseverance and hard work. What encouragement is it to any couple to exercise these qualities if the law takes such a short-term view?
In former days, there was at least the tenable proposition that serious sexual incompatibility could not with propriety be discovered before entering into the married state. Nowadays this simply is not so, even in the most respectable quarters. I simply do not believe that people who have entered responsibly into matrimony can be sure, within a twelvemonth, that they have made an irretrievable mistake. If they are so convinced, they can separate, but they should do so knowing that they must make their own arrangements for at least another year—that is, if one has any time limit at all.
Having listened to the debate this evening, I have come to the conclusion that the Scottish provision of no time bar is probably the most sensible. Then you do not pretend. It appears to me that to have a period as short as one year must indicate to the public that Parliament really does not care one way or another whether marriage matters. But for those of us who still believe that marriage and the family are among the most worthwhile relationships, one year seems to me to be, as I have said, the worst choice of all. I trust,
60
therefore, that at the Committee stage we can very carefully reconsider this suggested proposition.
I would suppose that all of us are agreed nowadays that if a marriage really does not work it should be terminated as fairly and decently as possible. But are the changes proposed in the Bill really conducive to fairness? I am not usually a passionate feminist, but what I have read of the commentaries on the Bill convinces me that its provisions could be strongly detrimental to many women other than young career women who reach marriage and then divorce without having any children. Most of us have seen the Family Policy Studies Report which makes it clear that the majority of lone mothers with young children are subsisting at a very low level of income, with a significant number relying on supplementary benefit. Surely this is not a satisfactory basis for bringing up children if you can possibly avoid it. At the other end of the age range, a woman who has brought up one or more children to the age of 18 cannot but have lost in the careers race, unless she has exceptional resilience and ability.
It is not clear to me that, as the Bill stands, justice is likely to be done to those women who find themselves in such a position, particularly taking into account, as the right reverend Prelate remarked. the state of the labour market, the low level of women's earnings and the complete uncertainty about the ability of people, and of women in particular, to comply with the proposed revision of Section 25(2)(a) under which they will have to take steps to increase their earning capacity in ways which, in the opinion of the court, it would be reasonable for them to take.
As I understand it, once matters are settled, there seems little chance of later readjustment, whatever the circumstances. In other words, the clean break, which is the intention of this proposed legislation, does not seem to me always to be attainable with reasonable justice for both sides. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated that he considered that a clean break would be attainable in a minority of cases, but he did not, as I understood it, make it quite clear in what circumstances he considered that this would be achieved.
Finally, there is the reference in Part II to conduct: I refer to Clause 3 and Section 25(2)(g). This seems to me again to be an extraordinarily difficult area in which to reach sound decisions. Unless it is demonstrably outrageous, those of us concerned with earlier reform were of the view that conduct in marriage is extraordinarily difficult to judge fairly. There are even situations in marriage in which nothing is more desperately exasperating than the worthiness of a "worthy" husband or the "virtue" of a good wife.
We must be grateful to all those who have laboured on the Law Commission and the various other reports but, as the Family Policy Studies Report makes clear and as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, most admirably described, there are still many gaps in our knowledge about what really happens and what, therefore, it is really desirable for us to endeavour to legislate about.
This Bill is a lawyers' bill rather than a social workers' Bill. We have to legislate, but I would hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor

61
might consider the pleas which have been made for possible further consideration of some of these matters. I should be very much less concerned about the inadequacies of the Bill if he could indicate that he would consider most seriously the pleas which have been made for family courts. I believe that many of the matters with which this legislation is concerned cannot be settled by ordinary judicial procedures and that the family court, with the right kind of advice at its disposal, would be more likely to bring about the justice and fairness to all concerned which I am sure we greatly desire.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the Conservative Party manifesto put forward the proposal to improve family law. It also put forward the proposal to support the family. The Bill which is before the House today is not a comprehensive reform. It is an important Bill but one hopes that it will be the precursor of wider and more imaginative reforms, to which I shall refer at a later stage.
First, may I deal with Part I of the Bill which removes the discretionary bar of three years from the date of marriage to the presentation of a petition for divorce and substitutes an absolute one year bar. I agree with the reduction from three years to one year for four reasons. First, if a marriage has broken down within one year and the couple are not physically living together, the period of three years while waiting for a divorce prolongs the bitterness. This is helpful to neither partner and does nothing to re-establish the marriage. It has to be remembered that at present with the three year waiting period petitions for judicial separation have increased. Half such petitions are made by couples who have been married less than three years. Under the present law these couples may go through two stages: judicial separation; and, three years later, a divorce.
Secondly, if a couple for housing, financial or other reasons, continue to live under the same roof in disharmony until the three years is up, they rarely take advice or conciliation at that stage. It can happen—and has happened—that, in an attempt to make the best of a bad job, almost unwillingly a child is conceived who later is the subject of dispute and faces a disrupted life. Reference has been made to Scotland, where there is not the three year ban. Within seven years the figure of divorces per thousand of the married population is the same as in England and Wales. This suggests that the three year restriction postpones but does not avoid divorce taking place.
Fourthly, under the three year rule a petitioner may be given leave to present a petition on the grounds of exceptional hardship or depravity on the part of the respondent. This may encourage would-be petitioners to vilify the respondent in order to obtain a divorce before the three years are up. For those four reasons I support Part I of the Bill.
Part II of the Bill deals with the financial consequences of divorce. I cannot think that the eventual outcome of this Bill is any different in principle from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I suggest it is more a matter of emphasis. The present
62
Bill places greater emphasis on children's needs. I quote:
"First consideration is given to the welfare, while a minor, of any child of the family who has not attained the age of 18 years."
I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in questioning the age of 18 years. I think probably 21 years would be a better age, considering what our education policy is in regard to grants for students, for instance, up to the age of 21 years.
With regard to financial relief, it is surely impossible to devise rules which take sufficient account of the variation of individual circumstances. In this age women are calling for equality of opportunity with men. If when children are off her hands and it is assessed that she has the capacity to earn, then is it not reasonable for her to be accorded the dignity of doing so? I am sure that many of your Lordships will have had copies of an enormous number of letters as I have had. I think that the letter that impressed me most was from a woman who does not have a professional background, who has been divorced for eight years, and who resents taking money, or being thought to be taking money—which she is not—from her husband. She prefers to be independent.
There are those who do not accept this Bill. I could wish it was being passed against the backcloth of other changes which I believe would then make it acceptable to all. I come to the question of family courts, to which so many of your Lordships have referred. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has said, this was referred to and recommended in the Finer Committee report. I believe that if we were to have family courts, and if the questions of maintenance and the care of the children were to be dealt with by family courts, then each case could be dealt with individually on its merits and on its needs. I understand that Judge Jean Graham Hall has costed this and that the cost is not as great as Ministers and civil servants would have us think.
If family courts were to be set up along the lines of the courts of Australia the settlement of the claims of husband and wife could be approached in an entirely different manner. Instead of a legal battle, there would more likely to be settlement by mutual consent with both husband and wife being involved in the discussions. According to the Queens land registry, this is proving to be a successful method of dealing with such cases. Both husband and wife and their solicitors are directly involved in discussion and negotiation.
The Matrimonial Cases Procedure Committee chaired by Mrs Justice Booth reports next July. For the moment we welcome the consultation paper, where she again has recommended both conciliation and reconciliation. If when a marriage breaks down the case is referred at an early stage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, then there is hope for constructive support to the family, possibly reconciliation, but at any rate a more kindly and more understanding conciliation.
I am bound to say that the inter-departmental report on conciliation is a disappointing and poor report. Consideration seems to have been given only to the saving of money in the short-term, arising, if I may say so, from some questionable costs—very questionable. I believe that the consultation paper issued by Mrs Justice Booth supports the conciliation services,

63
and I much hope that in her final report next July this will be strengthened.
Finally, those of us who support this Bill believe in marriage, we believe in family life, and we believe that children need stability, continuity of affection and care. The Bishop of Birmingham wrote in The Times on Friday, 18th November:
"Easy divorce is no answer."
I would submit that harsh divorce does not lead to the stability of marriage.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. It is not a Bill of fundamental law reform. The fundamental reform in family law was, as noble Lords have already pointed out, fulfilled in 1969, when irretrievable breakdown was introduced as the sole ground of divorce. This Bill, properly considered, deals with the consequences of divorce or the breakdown, and contains some valuable pieces of law reform. But let us dispel at once any suggestion that there is any fundamental change in the law proposed by this Bill. All its provisions are completely consistent with the fundamental change in the law that was carried through in 1969.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, good advocates that they are, have dramatically displayed to your Lordships the inequities of the existing law and the need for some law reform. It is therefore unnecessary to go over that ground except to remind your Lordships that we are discussing a Bill which is based on the recommendations of the two Law Commissions. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, this Bill, in so far as it is concerned with the subject matter of the reports of those two Law Commissions, adheres to their recommendations. It is always a good rule in this House, and I hope in another place, to give very favourable consideration to recommendations of the two Law Commissions, perhaps to the extent that, unless they can be demonstrated to be erroneous or undesirable, they should have the benefit of the favourable consideration of the House. That is true of this Bill.
What does this Bill do? So far, I have noticed in the debate a good deal of eloquence on matters not covered by the Bill; a good deal of eloquence on the inequities which the Bill must remedy, but rather less attention to what the Bill proposes. Since there have been some tragic misconceptions abroad in this country as to the effect of the Bill upon married women, I will spend the few minutes during which I intend to detain your Lordships on directing attention to the Bill.
Part I substitutes for a discretionary bar of three years an absolute bar on divorce of one year. The essential piece of law reform in Part I is to get rid of an ugly and objectionable discretion which is causing embarrassment to judges and a good deal of hardship and bitterness to the parties whose marriage has broken down. Of course, one can have a view as to whether there should be any bar at all, granted the principle of irretrievable breakdown. If there should be a bar, for reasons one could well understand, should it be for one year, two years or three years? This is very
64
much a matter of judgment and conscience and it is a matter on which one would hope the good sense of Parliament will ultimately reach a sensible solution. As to the removal of the discretionary character of the ban, that can only do good, relieve hardship and improve the purity of justice in this field.
I now come to Part II of the Bill. This is perhaps the most important part. It is certainly that part which has given rise to the greatest volume of misconception outside this House. There is nothing in Part II which need cause apprehension to the middle-aged or elderly married woman who has been deserted by her husband and who has no reasonable prospect of supporting herself either by earning or from her own resources. There is absolutely nothing to cause apprehension, as I shall very briefly demonstrate. The positive value of Part II is that it gets rid of certain errors that have crept into the law which have already been the subject of eloquent analyses by other noble Lords.
Let me now indicate what Part II does. It substitutes new guidelines for the existing guidelines which judges follow in determining whether there should be any, and if so what, financial support and property adjustment after divorce. These are largely based on or include the old guidelines but contain some new ones. Let me remind your Lordships of what they are. In the new Section 25—which substitutes for Section 25 of the 1973 Act—we find, first, that the judge is to give first consideration,
"to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family".
Nobody suggested that there is anything wrong with that. That is a first consideration. Are people really worried lest High Court or county court judges will forget that first consideration when dealing with subsequent questions affecting the wife and mother with whom the children are? Of course he will not. If he did, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning knows, he would soon be corrected by the Court of Appeal.
What follows? Much of this is repetition of what is already in the law, but there are one or two matters of value, none of which is of the slightest danger to needy women who have been desertd by their husbands, and much of it is of very real support for them. The court must have regard to the resources of the parties to the marriage. The court must have regard to the needs—I underline the word "needs"—of the parties to the marriage. That is to say, in every application for financial support or property adjustment the judge must assess the needs of the parties. Of course, one of the needs of both husband and wife after a marriage has broken down may be a need arising after dissolution. That must be considered too, because those needs as well as the needs of the spouses in other respects have to be considered. Bear in mind that, throughout, the judge must look at all the circumstances of the case. Then the judge must take account of the disability, if any, of either party and of the contributions of either party to the marriage. He must also take account of their conduct. Your Lordships have heard how conduct comes in subject to the judge being satisfied that it would be inequitable to disregard it. There is a matter not yet mentioned—the right of the wife to have her financial support assessed on the basis, if it be the fact, that she may lose her chance of

65
sharing in her husband's pension. All those are good, straightforward guidelines, containing no threat to the middle-aged or elderly married women.
We then come to new Section 25A. This would incorporate the "clean break". I was distressed to hear the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady White, on this part of the proposals. Although she has had to leave us, I hope I can say a few words which will allay her distress, very temperately put to your Lordhips' House but somewhat hysterically felt by many people outside the House. What is embraced by this nice piece of developing jargon, the "clean break"? Let me remind your Lordships. If the court thinks it is a case for financial support, it shall then,
"be the duty of the court to consider whether it would be appropriate so to exercise those powers",
on the basis that the financial obligations of each party to the other might be subject to a time limit, and only of course if to do so would be "just and reasonable."
Again here is a branch of the law, and here is a Bill, which of necessity confers upon the judge a very wide-ranging discretion, as one noble Lord has already emphasised. Is it to be thought that county court judges exercising divorce jurisdiction or High Court judges will overlook the limit on their power? They must do only that which is just and reasonable. Is it really so dangerous that you must not entrust to a High Court or a divorce judge the power to consider the possibility of termination? Do your Lordships really think that there is any risk there to women who would be left in penury after desertion—women unable for one reason or another to provide for their own support? Once looked at in those ways these misconceptions are, with respect, nonsensical.
There is, of course, the power which has disturbed some—and which I think disturbs the noble Baroness, Lady White—that the court may direct that no futher application for maintenance shall be made by a spouse who has made an application. Again this is not an inevitable guillotine hanging over the neck of a penurious and deserted wife. It is a discretion given to a judge of the Family Division or a judge exercising family jurisdiction. He can do it in cases where it is appropriate. He already has the guidelines which I have enumerated. He already has the duty to look at all the circumstances of the case.
Everyone agrees that with the emancipation of women there are an increasing number of cases in which women can and do wish to look after themselves after the break-up of their marriage. All that this provision does is to empower the judge in cases where it is appropriate to impose the so-called clean break. I say no more about Part II of the Bill, save to implore your Lordships both now on Second Reading and later in Committee to pay attention to what the Bill says and not to the misconceptions which outside this House have been allowed to develop.
I would make two other points on this Bill. First, very little has been said in this debate about the valuable provisions enabling the courts of England and Wales and Scotland to order financial relief to a woman whose marriage has been dissolved by an overseas decree. Of course there will be jurisdictional conditions to be met; of course there is a filter to ensure
66
that the marriage, the married life or the woman herself has real connection with this country. That is a very valuable provision indeed. It has been a dangerous and miserable gap in our law. Part III of the Bill bridges that gap.
Part V of the Bill has been seen by some—and I confess I am one of that number—as paving the way towards a family court. Like many of your Lordships, I was very pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us that family courts were to be examined. Like others, I was greatly heartened by what we have so far learned of the work of the Booth Committee on matrimonial causes procedure. It appears that we are at last seeing a slight movement in the log jam which has prevented us from proceeding towards family courts.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and even I think also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made speeches which were really directed to the issue of the desirability of a family court. To that extent, with respect, I profoundly agree with them. I am very sad that this Bill contains no provision for a conciliation service. I am very sad that it contains no attempt to deal with the problem of the occupational pension and the right of the wife who has been divorced to have some share of that pension. I am also concerned—again it has not been mentioned in this House yet—at the very wide discretion inevitably conferred upon judges by this and any other legislation in the same field. I see that none of these matters are perhaps ripe for inclusion in this Bill. I certainly should not regard any of them as a reason for not proceeding with a tierce loyalty with this Bill to ensure that it passes to another place, enshrining the principles of reform which it does at the moment.
Having said that, I hope that this Bill will help pave the way towards a later consideration of fundamental law reform in the procedural field comparable only with the fundamental law reform in the substantive field of 1969 and completely suited to it. This is a good, healthy and just Bill, relieving hardship and doing nobody any harm at all.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords. it has been a privilege to listen to the learned legal opinions stated this afternoon. I do not intend in any way to follow that trend. However, I pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, regarding pensions. I do not have time to deal with this tonight, but it seems to me—as it appears to him—to be an unwarranted omission from what the noble and learned Lord has described as a Bill that does nobody any harm, and one which may do some people some good. The Bill could do more people some good if it included the provision that he mentioned—the right of a divorced woman to participate in the pension.
I do not attempt to deal with the Bill on legal grounds. But we have seen from a number of speeches from both noble Lords and noble Baronesses that the real issue is social rather than legal. Some speeches made this afternoon seemed to me to be a long way away from the real social world in which we live. In debating the Second Reading of this Bill, it would be

67
wrong for us in this House if some of the fears that have already been expressed in examining the Bill from the social angle were not at least put into the pot. We hope that in the Committee and Report stages the Bill's provisions can be further examined and possibly amended.
I make this point in particular. There is no party debate on this issue. We are responsible for the happiness or unhappiness of millions. We know—and it is a truism to say—that we cannot by law create married happiness. The same applied to the Race Relations Act. We cannot create racial harmony. But what we can do, and what it is our responsibility to do, is to diminish the unhappiness and in this kind of circumstance to frame laws in such a way that people are protected.
If I may, I should like to put before the House some of the fears that have been expressed; and I am sure that they have been expressed to most noble Lords who have put down their names to participate in the debate. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack so lucidly explained to us at the beginning of the debate, the Bill is the product not just of Government action, but also of the Law Commissions, the Booth Committee on matrimonial procedures, and the courts. I have no doubt that each of them did their utmost to find a form of words which would create a better atmosphere in the unhappy period which follows any divorce than is at present the case under the law, the 1973 Act.
But there are many people, and indeed many legal people, who would say that the Bill is a part of a trend, is the latest development in a trend. It is a trend which has begun to make it more difficult for wives to obtain and enforce injunctions against violent husbands. It is a trend to reduce the importance of the welfare of children in comparison with the father's property rights, as they are claimed, in deciding who shall occupy the matrimonial home; a trend to reduce the rights of dependent wives to maintenance on divorce, to create procedural obstacles to the applicants for injunctions and maintenance, almost all of whom are women, and to threaten the use of legal aid in matrimonial proceedings.
Not for a moment am I suggesting that I am capable, or desirous, of supporting all those criticisms. I simply draw to the attention of the House the fact that these criticisms are coming from responsible circles, and that when we come to examine the Bill in detail it is our responsibility to do so in the light of the criticisms that are being made on the kinds of grounds that I have mentioned.
I now turn to the more detailed parts of the Bill, and first I wish to refer to Part 1 and Clause 1. In the debate we have heard about the change in the minimum period from three years to one year. Many people would consider this to be a liberalising measure. In fact, the noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest that he had at least considered possibly introducing the Scottish provision in England and Wales, though I did not appreciate his reference to the danger that it might be used in order to dissolve marriages of immigrants who had simply married in order to attain nationality. But——
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that he must disabuse himself at once of any idea that it has anything to do with immigrants. The reference that I made—if the noble Lord is interested in the subject—was to a case called Vervaeke, in which I sat judicially. If the noble Lord cares to look at the facts of that case, I do not think that he will be edified by them, but he will at least know what I meant.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I of course unreservedly withdraw any suggestion that the noble and learned Lord was talking of immigrants if he says that he was not. That is what I had interpreted his words to mean. I am very glad that he intervened and made the position absolutely clear; and I apologise to him.
On the question of reducing the period from three years to one year, there is one point that worries me. To give a man and woman the right to dissolve their marriage before the three years is up might be liberalising, but I am concerned that, with the introduction of the period of one year, there is to be an absolute bar on any petition within that one year. I am concerned about this proposal because I am certain that we all know of cases where early in a marriage it turns out that one of the parties—usually the man—is found to be violent. As a layman I am concerned about where this absolute bar on the submission of a petition of divorce within the first year could lead. Here I am thinking in particular of working class circumstances. where the woman has nowhere to go, the police will not interfere because it is a domestic issue, and she is unduly exposed.
At the moment we have the three-year rule except, as has been continually pointed out, where the leave of the court is granted. But, as I understand it, the change proposed in Clause I will remove the possibility of the leave of the court being granted for a petition to be submitted during the first year of marriage. If we do not go as far as the Scots—and I certainly support those noble Lords who have said that the proposal might well have a beneficial effect socially—it seems to me that the court should be given some discretion to provide for the protection of such women.
Much has been made of Clause 3, in Part II. Despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said to reassure us. I believe that there is a danger in the substitution of Clauses 25 and 25A for Section 25 of the 1973 Act. This comes about in the following way. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has pointed out to us, the first consideration is to be that of the welfare of the child. I believe that we would all agree on that.
But then there are certain guidelines added to that first principle. There is the desirability that the parties become self-sufficient. This is where I find a gap between the legal interpretation of the Bill and the social reality. How many women—and they do not have to be old or middle-aged—spend 10, 15 or 20 years doing nothing but home-making, looking after their husbands, bringing up their children, making homes for their families, only to find that their husbands then leave them? During that period, the woman, who may be no more than, say, 40, has been denied the opportunity of outside occupation, outside

69
education, external training and fitting herself for what the Bill describes as the desirability of the parties becoming self-sufficient. Surely this is not good enough.
While it may very well be the case, in particular in middle and upper-class societies, that the woman has had sufficient education before she married, in very many more instances that will not be the case, and the question of self-sufficiency is totally unreal to a very large number of women who will be left in this position. Note, too, my Lords, that in the clause the court is empowered to dismiss outright—and I stress the word "outright"—an application for maintenance.
I wish to deal briefly with Clause 5 which empowers the court to direct that the party shall not be entitled to apply for an extension of a maintenance order of a limited duration. Again, circumstances change. Surely, there should be some more discretion rather than this cast iron prevention of a court extending a maintenance order as the circumstances change. I suggest that this clause, like Clause 6, which similarly deals with maintenance variation, could be loosened up to give a great deal more discretion and less guidance to the courts.
I have already mentioned the pension issue which, I understand, comes in Clause 7 under the inheritance provisions. I shall simply say that I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, had to say about the right of a wife to participate in her husband's pension after divorce. The financial provision on the death of the husband is something that we might examine more closely in Committee.
Clause 8 in some ways worries me more than any other. Paragraph (f), on the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, is excellent. It improves greatly the recognition of the participation of the wife in an unpaid capacity as the homemaker. But that is followed by paragraph (g) which again introduces the old idea that the conduct of the parties should play a part in the decision on maintenance following a divorce. That, again, goes back, as I understand it, to the old concept of the fault.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. He has got it absolutely wrong. Under the existing law, which I hold in my hand, conduct is relevant. The words in Section 25(1) of the existing law say:
"so to exercise those powers as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to their conduct, just to do so…".
That is the present law. The change is that they are to regard conduct if, and therefore only if, it would be inequitable to disregard it. Far from reintroducing something, it is putting an added restriction upon it. I hope that I have at last made it clear to the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, yes. Again, I accept the noble and learned Lord's interpretation. All that I would say to him—I think he would agree—is that the question of fault within the whole of our matrimonial laws has declined over the past decade. It would seem to me that the addition of this clause, with the words that the noble and learned Lord read out:
70
"the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it,"
is bringing back at least a danger of the old concept of fault. I remind the noble and learned Lord of the cases that have been quoted in support of what I say. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, quoted the case of Wachtel v. Wachtel in 1973. But, in October last year, there was the Robinson case—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is aware of it—in which it was held that the conduct should be taken into account in assessing a wife's maintenance when to disregard it would be a reasonable person's sense of justice. The Court of Appeal, in this case, reduced the maintenance to be paid to a wife who had a young baby simply because she had deserted her husband.
I remind him further of the case of Richards in July this year when, again, the conduct of a wife in leaving her husband was given greater importance than had previously been thought correct. There are some members of the learned profession who, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows, believe these two cases, particularly the second, are undermining the principles that were established by the Wachtel case in 1973.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I really must interrupt again. I sat judicially in Richards. The noble Lord has given a travesty of what was decided. It was a question of an interim injunction ousting a husband from the matrimonial home for which it is necessary, and always has been necessary, for the wife to make some sort of a case. It was decided unanimously by five of the noble and learned Lords who sat, I being one and the noble Lord, Lord Scarman, being another, that she had not begun to get off the ground. It is a travesty to describe it in the way the noble Lord has.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that may be the case but the travesty is not mine alone. It is a travesty supported by the Legal Action Group, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware, which has quoted specifically the three cases I have used to show the way in which there is at least a danger that the old concept of fault within the matrimonial causes is being reintroduced. I say no more than that, in the hope that the matter will be raised and debated by much more learned Lords than myself at the Committee stage. I raise it because I hope that it will be recognised that there are some members of the legal profession who believe that this is a danger.
I must wind up my remarks, although I have to remind your Lordships that I have not been speaking all the time since I rose. This Bill has been described—I had better give the exact quotation lest it be challenged—in the bulletin of the Legal Action Group as part of a middle-aged, middle-class, male backlash based on the false claim that women have been receiving more favourable treatment in the courts. It is not for me to criticise the courts. I simply draw to the attention of the House that this is an opinion stated by a legal body. It is our responsibility to ensure, when we come to examine the details of the Bill, that that kind of accusation cannot stand up. I believe that it would not have been made in those terms unless there had been fears within the legal profession, as well as among those directly affected by

71
our matrimonial law. If those fears had not been there, they would not have been expressed. I bring them to the House not in any censorious manner but in order to put the quite legitimate fears that are raised among ordinary laymen when members of the legal profession describe the Bill in these terms.
Nobody would doubt the fact that men generally hold the economic assets in a marriage and that it is the men who are usually violent towards women. Women need the help of the courts to redress both the economic imbalance and to obtain protection against violence. The value of this law will depend upon how effective we are in giving a remedy to women in divorce so far as their economic future is concerned and so far as their own protection is concerned if they find themselves as the abandoned woman.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because I agree with him that this is not just a legal Bill; it is a human Bill. Indeed, that is what I think the noble Lord said. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for introducing the Bill. For many years I, in company with many other people, have been worried about the financial strictures of the 1969, the 1973 and other Acts, and have felt that much more flexibility should be given to those who adjudicate on separation orders and on divorce proceedings.
My noble and learned friend has, as usual, made a complicated Bill as easy to digest as is possible. Before speaking to the Bill I should like to make a passing reference to the work of the Order of Christian Charity who are initiating pre-marriage counselling. I hope that this idea—which they hope to further—prospers.
Today in this Bill we are dealing with broken marriages and it might be of interest to know that the recently published figures show that in England and Wales in 1982, 51.8 per cent. of marriages were religious marriages and 48.2 per cent. were civil marriages. Indeed, 177,027 were religious marriages, and 165,089 were civil marriages. Those are the figures for last year which came out last week. So tonight—and we shall be doing so throughout the rest of our discussions on the Bill—we are dealing with the breakdown of all marriages, whether a promise was made in church or not. I was lucky in that I was able to be married in church for both of my marriages and I consider that that was of tremendous benefit to both marriages.
Since 1973 so much has happened in our society; for instance, far more women have a job before marriage and obtain qualifications which can be valuable later on. That, in turn, means that more women, who are often mothers, are able to leave their husbands—in some cases their husbands and the children. I have known many of those very tragic cases.
I turn to the Bill and to Clause 1. It is suggested in the Bill that the bar which prevents spouses from seeking a divorce should be reduced from three years, as now, to one year. I find this provision the one upon which I may beg to differ from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I think that in all marriages there is a period of honeymoon during
72
which a couple appear to everybody to be on "Cloud 9" living for the present and often oblivious of the future. They are blissfully happy and presume that their ecstasy will last for ever. The honeymoon seems to come to an end with the first quarrel, usually after about nine months of marriage. If the couple are very young, if they are also, because of immaturity, rather unstable, if there is no baby on the way, and if one or both are unemployed, then the temptation to seek a divorce after a year might be a very real one. I believe that if they had to wait a little longer it is more likely that their affection for each other might well weather the temporary storms. Therefore, I should like to suggest, as other noble Lords have done, that the period should be for more than one year. I would perhaps suggest two years. There are also, of course, cases—usually occurring in the armed services—where the spouses are separated soon after marriage and the strain leads to quarrels. I believe that they should be given a longer time to adjust.
I turn to Clause 3. Divorces are sometimes, though rarely, by mutual consent and unfortunately money is the root of much bitterness and argument. Who shall have what? Who shall pay for what? How much can be afforded by either spouse? How are any children to be maintained? Up until now financial arrangements have been based on trying to maintain the standard of living which the parties have previously enjoyed. This has led to much hardship and, I think, to unfair discrimination in favour of the wife. If there are no children then it seems right that the court should, by order, contrive a clean break so as not to inhibit either party in the future. But where children are involved they must—and this is the intention of the Bill—be the first consideration; they should receive maintenance (from either parent) before maintenance for the ex-spouse, and the cost of their financial upkeep should have priority in the mind of the court. Where an ex-spouse is capable of keeping himself or herself it seems fair that the maintenance should not be too prolonged and that at the court's discretion it should cease.
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor one practical question, the answer to which I am not aware. As a magistrate sitting on separation cases I granted orders, but I never actually saw the orders. So whether they were on one piece of paper or whether the order regarding the children was on a separate piece of paper, I do not know. But it seems practical to me that, if one were going to order a wife's maintenance to cease, that order should be torn up forthwith, and that the order for the children's maintenance should be on a completely separate piece of paper.
Paragraph (g) in Clause 3(2) has been referred to by many noble Lords. It refers to the conduct of the parties being taken into consideration, only where applicable, by the court. It seems to me that spouses are prepared to agree that it takes two to tango, that it takes two to conceive a child, but spouses will not admit that in the vast majority of cases it takes the behaviour of two people to decide on divorce.
As regards Clause 8, I am glad to see that the far-reaching requirements of the court in Clause 3 shall also obtain under Clause 8 in the magistrate's court. It will, I feel, mean that magistrates will be able and, indeed, will have to inquire more closely than before

73
into the problems of the couple appearing before them for a separation order. I suppose, like other noble Lords, especially perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, it cannot be a part of the future Act to ask the couple if they have sought professional help with a view to reconciliation. In my court I used to ask them, and sometimes they agreed to try. So many agencies do such brilliant work in this field that I would like, if it were possible, to make it part of the Bill.
Very briefly, I should like to refer to Clause 16 in Part III of the Bill. This clause deals with the matrimonial home. It has always seemed to me that the home—the bricks and mortar which make a base for a child or children—is of enormous importance to the stability of their childhood. We all hope that home is where both parents live, but in the event of a divorce, I think that if it is possible for the home to be kept and lived in by the caring parent, it will make a considerable contribution to the welfare of the child. This clause seems very adequately to meet all the problems.
This is a very important Bill. The unhappiness of a broken marriage,
which leads to divorce, is felt by the spouses, by their children and by all their family and friends. The complexities of human relationships mean that every case is different and every case is special to those involved. Marriage and family life are a very precious part of our society and anything which anyone can do to underline the seriousness of the undertaking to our young people should be encouraged.
We cannot pretend that this Bill—or any other—can meet all the problems. But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has had the courage and the humanity to bring it before us today, and I wish it well.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, in view of the hour and the number of your Lordships who still wish to speak. I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can. May I begin where the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, left off and offer respectful congratulations to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor upon his having introduced the Bill so early in this Session, and also to congratulate the Law Commission and everyone else who, over these last years, have worked to produce what has gone into the Bill.
Of course, as many of your Lordships have said, this Bill is not perfect, and of course opinions will differ as to the merits of various proposals. But I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this Bill's great merit is not so much that it is a great measure of law reform as that it seeks to learn from the experience which has been gained in the operation of the law as that law has developed in the past 15 years or so, or rather less, since the great reforming statutes instituted in 1969 and 1970 by the Law Commission in my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman's day, which changed the law radically, got rid of the old concept of matrimonial offence, and introduced the new concept of the irretrievable break down of marriage. This Bill, for the first time, seeks to put right that which experience has shown in the courts has gone wrong in the working out of that legislation.
74
I have always ventured to think that the jurisdiction of the courts, whether the High Court, county court or magistrates' courts in family matters is the most sensitive of all judicial jurisdictions. It is even more sensitive—and this is saying a lot—than having to decide whether someone should be subject to an immediate custodial sentence or whether, say, a particular accident case should be decided one way or the other. In cases of that type there is at least a possibility of the court being able to be reasonably certain that it has reached a right conclusion. But in jurisdiction in matrimonial disputes the courts are all too often faced with that recurrent judical nightmare: not what is the right decision, but which of the various possible options is the least wrong.
In these cases the courts are not dealing with one or two people only; they are dealing with whole families and have to make decisions which though on their face may appear only to concern an ex-husband or an ex-wife and one family, in truth are most likely to concern two, three or even more families according to the current relationships of the former husband and wife, each of whom may—and in all probability will—have joined forces with some other former husband and wife, with children sometimes extending ad infinitum more numerous than one would ever believe were genetically possible. Indeed, it was only last week that I learnt of a case which came before the Domestic Panel in Basing stoke Magistrates' Court, of which I am still privileged to he a member, where the various families concerned had between them no fewer than a dozen children, every one of whom was likely to be affected by that court's decision.
When one noble Lord indicated a few moments ago that those of us who sit in any court—whether it is the House of Lords, a magistrates' court on matrimonial matters, or somewhere as trial judges—are not sensitive to the social problems involved, I can only say with the utmost respect that it is because of the sensitivity of the Judiciary at all levels to the social problems involved that we are deeply personally interested and involved in these problems.
The pattern of the problems must vary infinitely and that is why the legislation must be framed in the most general terms, seeking to enjoin the courts as to the principles which they must apply, but at the same time leaving them free to apply those principles in the light of the special problems to which individual cases must inevitably give rise. I would venture to echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, said a couple of hours ago, that Parliament must lay down the principles; but the courts must be trusted in the individual cases in the exercise of an enormously wide and far-reaching judicial discretion to apply the principles which Parliament has laid down.
There are many provisions in this Bill upon which one could comment. In the interests of brevity I shall single out a very few for special mention. Let me take first Clause 3 in relation to the High Court and county courts, and Clause 8 in relation to magistrates' courts. May I venture to echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said a few moments ago, that it is a comfort to those of us who have been deeply interested in this work for a long time in both courts to see that what will now happen will enable both courts to administer the law in absolutely identical terms. That is of absolutely crucial importance.

75
Each of these clauses enjoins the court to ensure that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. It is most welcome to see that on the statute book; but, of course, this has been the subject of judicial decision for more years than I care to remember and it is an illustration of what sometimes is not recognised, that in these matters very often the courts are very far ahead of the legislature in giving effect to that which is so obviously right.
Another improvement—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already mentioned this—is to remove the old provision—which could never have been more than a pious hope at best—that the courts were required to place the parties in the same position as if the marriage had not broken down. That was never feasible, if only for one reason: that one income has never been able to support more than one family unless one was dealing with that rare case of the millionaire with a large number of wives.
Still, on these two clauses, may I just say a word or two about conduct. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will forgive me—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already intervened twice to correct him—if I say that he really has got the provisions of the new Bill wrong, for one reason or another. Some of your Lordships may recall—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already referred to this—the unhappy provision that persisted before 1969: those old contested divorce cases in which truth was a casualty on the first day of a 25-day case, and everybody was merely fighting madly not to tell the truth but over money or custody of the children, and no one could resist trying to tell the judge that his former partner was wholly unfit either to have any money or the custody of any child.
It was that situation with which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and I and the late Lord Justice Phillimore were faced. The right reverend Prelate may recall that Lord Justice Phillimore, who unhappily died 10 years ago, was part author of the Church work, Putting Asunder and knew more about this than most of us. In the Wachtel case the three of us were faced with this problem: there were some—dare I use the phrase—old-fashioned judges of the Family Division who thought that the old concept of cruelty had been carried into the 1970 statute. It was quite plain on the language of the statute that that might be a possible interpretation and we had a cri de coeur literally from the judges of the then new Family Division, "Will you sort this out?"
The three of us set about sorting it out and, as my noble and learned friend has already said, that judgment was in fact a composite effort and we tried to kill the old concept of "conduct" for good and all. I believe—and I have watched this from my days in the Court of Appeal sitting with my noble and learned friend Lord Denning—that we succeeded. Indeed, we have succeeded to such an extent that there is now a body of opinion which thinks that perhaps the law has gone a little too far, and that the type of wife who milks her husband to go off with her new boyfriend sometimes is able to live off her former husband to a greater extent.
I personally believe that that is a rare case, but, if it
76
does exist, the new provision, to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor drew Lord Hatch's attention a few minutes ago, will enable the courts to reflect. But conduct must not be, and never will be, introduced by a back door, otherwise you find yourselves introducing the old idea of matrimonial offence again by a back door, and, worse than that, saying to a divorced wife, "Well, I would have given you £100 a week, but because you have been guilty of some matrimonial misdemeanour I am only going to give you £50". That is almost turning adultery into a criminal offence for which a fine is the appropriate penalty. We have moved a long way from that, and I trust and believe that it will never come back.
Next, a word about "clean break". There has, as your Lordships know, been a slight difference of judicial opinion as to whether or not under the existing legislation there is power, say, where there has been an express agreement, to order a clean break in the ordinary straightforward divorce case. Who is right and who is wrong does not now matter in the slightest. There are obviously some cases where a clean break is desirable in the interests of everybody, and that power is now being given. But to suggest that that power is going to be used by the courts to penalise the devoted wife whose husband has deserted her after 20 or 25 years of married life and to leave her penniless, I am afraid is a suggestion of someone who really is wholly divorced from reality. The power to bring about a clean break is a power which I am quite certain is necessary, but it is a power that will be most cautiously exercised.
A word about Part III. Curiously enough, only my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman has referred to it. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning will remember from Court of Appeal days that there was a time about eight or nine years ago when we were occupied with the endless problem of foreign divorces, and whether or not they had to be recognised in this country. Some of them were obtained in circumstances—I hope I cause no offence in saying this—which were shocking by any ordinary English standards of justice, and yet because they were valid under the local law we had no alternative in private international law and after some of the statutes but to give effect to it.
What was the effect of that on scores of wives of immigrant population in this country who had come from overseas? They had found themselves divorced in some foreign country which I shall not mention, and because there were no divorce proceedings pending here our courts had no power whatever to deal with what were often very substantial quantities of matrimonial property. This is a much needed and most welcome reform.
Before I sit down may I add one other word? Much has been said this evening about family courts. I am not going to stray into that sphere because it is more perhaps a political than a legal problem. But I should like to take this opportunity—and I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will agree—to draw attention to the work that is being done in this field in magistrates' courts. In many respects the jurisdiction now exercised by the domestic panels of magistrates' courts is indistinguishable from the work which is done in the High Court or in the county court

77
in matrimonial matters. It has the enormous advantage that it is not being dealt with by one lawyer sitting alone. It is being dealt with by two or three justices, all or most of whom will have been married and have brought up families, some of whom will have been through the traumas of the divorce court themselves, and who will be familiar with all the problems.
I have often thought that jurisdiction was conferred in 1978 really for policy reaons in order to ease the burden on the Family Division and on the county court, but I have often thought that if we were going to move in the sphere of family courts and try to extend the much-needed conciliation services, then, rather than destroy the jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts, which it has been suggested should be destroyed and everything put back in the High Court or the county court, we should do better—and the Lord Chancellor has heard me say this before in another place, I know—to build upon the foundation of the magistrates' courts and use them as part and parcel of the foundation of a family court in the future.
The sooner this Bill reaches the Statute Book the sooner justice will be able to be done to high and low alike, and the social problems—which I have ventured to repeat in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said—which are a constant daily and almost nightly concern of the judiciary at all levels will be able to be, eased.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, it is really impossible to speak in this debate tonight without reflecting on the great human tragedy and all the attendant pain which is brought on by divorce. And it is therefore of particular concern to know that with divorce rising in all the Western European countries, it is nevertheless Britain which is in the forefront with its rate of divorce having increased by 150 per cent. in the last 10 years. That means, of course, that an enormous number of children have had their lives turned upside down in that period.
I neither have the ability, the qualifications nor the experience to see this Bill in purely legal terms, so although I have listened carefully—and I have been much reassured by what all our noble and learned friends have said—I would nevertheless like to make a few remarks from a social point of view, and indeed represent some of those anxieties which have been put to me, notably from the National Council for One-Parent Families.
I think when considering this whole question of divorce it is important to recognise that within our particular society marriage is not an arranged affair of property relations but is brought about by emotional relationships. It is consequently that emotional relationship which has to bear the brunt of the pressures brought about by the fluctuating and mobile society in which we live. Furthermore, it is obvious that such pressures will be exacerbated when a family is unable to cope financially. Thus, it is hardly surprising that there is a higher divorce rate among those in the lower income bracket.
In the first place, the poorer couples experience a very real drop in living standards merely on having children. Apart from the actual expense incurred by
78
the child itself, there is usually either a shift from two sets of salaries to one, or the need to pay for child care facilities. I need hardly say that the level of child benefit in this country in no way relates to the cost of bringing up children. Indeed, the Foster Care Association estimate that this benefit corresponds to only 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the real cost of bringing up a child.
Therefore, in spite of the financial difficulties already encountered by families when living together, together with the obvious disincentive of having to make the same inadequate income spread over two households, the divorce figures are spiralling. Indeed, three-quarters of those petitioning for divorce are women; the majority of whom will of course become the custodial parent to the child. Inevitably this brings in its wake a rising number of financially disadvantaged families headed by a lone mother; women, moreover, who rarely enjoy regular support from any extended family network.
It must be further recognised that these women can hardly he described as having emerged from marriage on an equal footing to their husbands. For many of them reasonable career prospects may have been sacrificed in the process of child care. Similarly, there will be women who have made endless sacrifices to their own short-term well being and long-term career prospects in the interest of assisting and furthering their husband's developing career. Here I really am in a position to bear witness to the particular instance of diplomats' wives, who probably more than anybody make great career sacrifices in order to make their contribution to their husbands' jobs which is expected from that career. So those seem to be the key factors in the rise in divorce, especially among people worst hit by the nation's present economic ills and including a growing number of poor families headed by a lone mother.
Contrary to what is generally thought, as much as one half of these lone mothers already create sufficient earnings to bring up their own children; a further one-third rely on supplementary benefit and—as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, said—only 6 per cent of the ex-wives rely on maintenance as the main source of income. The reality of the manner in which maintenance arrangements affect these women at present is that too little is ordered, too little is paid; and, finally, enforcement measures are totally inadequate. That is their problem.
Having tried to give a few ideas about the economic havoc brought on poor families by divorce, I shall now comment briefly on Part II regarding maintenance. It is clear that one of the aims, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, is to eliminate the species of women known popularly as "alimony drones"—these women without dependent children who refuse to work and instead subsist on the meal ticket for life provided by their divorced husbands. It suggests other changes which have been enumerated today.
It seems possible that many of these changes are irrelevant or unfair. First, it seems to be a fact that the "alimony drone" has become a myth. There have been one or two highly publicised cases, but incredibly few. The reality is that ex-wives are not receiving excessive amounts of maintenance. This is not

79
surprising when one realises that already the courts expect women to take paid employment once their children no longer require full time care. Furthermore, the attendant difficulties of enforcing maintenance orders and making sure they keep pace with inflation means that many women simply abandon their orders. The real problem is not "alimony drones" but, as I said earlier, it is the poverty which affects women and children after divorce.
This is borne out by that enormous increase of one-parent families seeking the advice of their associations. Lone mothers come to them in despair, unable to make ends meet. Many would agree that wives should be financially independent. I am sure that the whole of the women's movement must be behind that quest; but surely reducing the right to private maintenance is an unfair way of enforcing that independence without having first ensured that women enjoy equal status with men under the tax and social security laws. It is equally unfair to expect women with children to look after to take, or remain in, paid employment without first providing adequate day care, nursery facilities, opportunities for training and re-training, genuine equality of opportunity at work and equal pay and fringe benefits.
The proof that we are still light years from achieving this provision lies in that fact that in 1981 the average of all female earnings was only 67 per cent. of the average of all male earnings. The European Court of Justice ruled in July this year that the United Kingdom Government had not fulfilled the EEC Treaty obligation on the right of women and men to claim equal pay for work of equal value.
Whereas it is realistic to accept that on divorce the partners cannot expect to be in the same financial position as they would have been if the marriage had not broken down, nevertheless the Bill does not provide any alternative criteria. It makes no attempt to achieve an equitable distribution of the economic assets and advantages of marriage towards which both partners have contributed.
Again, although the Bill—as has been said so many times today—appears concerned with children, surely its true priorities are revealed when the lengthy clauses on maintenance are compared with the five line subsection which provides simply that children's needs shall be given first consideration without it in any way being written into the Bill as to how this should be done. There is nothing about how much it costs to keep a child as it grows up, including the costs of substitute care. There is nothing about how the liability for children should be divided between the parents. These and other questions should not be left to the courts to work out over lengthy periods of expensive litigation.
This brings me to my last point regarding the most serious flaw which has been pointed out by most speakers today: that is the failure to provide an out-of-court conciliation service. In my view this omission makes a mockery of the Bill's very title—the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill. Surely that is what it is not. If it was concerned about families it would have set up a conciliation service which in Bristol, as elsewhere, has shown that much of the bitterness of divorce can be reduced by providing neutral and
80
independent conciliators to draw up agreements on custody, access and even financial arrangements.
I end by saying this. In view of the great gravity of the present level of divorce figures, together with the many representations and anxieties which have been expressed concerning the Bill, the lack of information that there is over certain areas of this matter, would the Government not agree to put more thought into the Bill and try to make it something which will be in tune with the full gravity of the situation of divorce among families today?
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am very pleased to be allowed to say a few words, particularly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have been in both Houses with him and I have always found his explanation of Bills to be thorough and excellent. When we have legal matters to discuss, he gives great heart to people such as myself who are not legally trained. His patience and the clarity with which he puts things forward are quite amazing.
I should also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for his explanation of new Clause 25(2)(a), because that solves the problem. We can be reassured that the rights of the woman or the man will be well looked after. I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, described this as a "middle class" Bill. Very often I have found that the weekly wage earners can look after themselves far better than the middle class and I feel that they will not be detrimentally treated by the Bill. I should also like to support my noble friend Lady Faithfull in regard to her Australian family courts, because I have visited them and they work extremely well.
I will mention one or two subjects. The first concerns maintenance agreements. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may remember that in another place in 1955, which I entered at that time, I was successful in the ballot for a Private Member's Bill. I was fortunate enough to get an early place and brought in a Maintenance Orders (Attachment of Earnings) Bill. I succeeded in getting a Second Reading and the Bill went to Committee. I should mention that maintenance could be obtained by employers deducting maintenance
money from a man's wages to pay the sum required by the court, if agreed by him. In another place in Committee—I regret to say I was not happy when the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggested we might adopt the same system—three Conservative and three Labour Members sat outside the Committee room in order that I should not get a quorum. In that was my Bill was defeated.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not here because, as the Minister concerned, he was marvellous. He came to all the so-called Committee meetings to support us. The final outcome was all right because the Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, later Lord Butler, brought in a similar Bill which is now the Maintenance Order Act, 1958. I mention this because it is referred to in the Title to the Bill which in the last few lines reads:
"… to impose a duty to notify changes of address on persons liable to make payments under maintenance orders enforceable under Part II of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 or Part I of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958; and for connected purposes".
I regret to say that in previous years this operation has

81
not been very successful. The men either changed their names or used to change their jobs; this is not quite so easy now. I should like to know whether this new Bill will make it easier to contact these people and how it will be arranged. I should like also to say that most of the
one-parent families are headed by women now living in poverty and maintenance plays a very large part in their lives. When I had my interview sessions, one of the numerous questions asked was about housing and the other one was about how they were going to get their money for maintenance. Very often, their income was totally inadequate and then one was able to get them supplementary benefit for the time being.
But the situation is very difficult if they have maintenance orders which are not applicable to a particular court or where they usually have to pick up their maintenance. They go there unsuccessfully day after day or week after week. I should be very grateful if we could have some knowledge of whether, in future, it is going to be easier for them to get their maintenance money when it is granted.
This Bill also appears to me to seek a reduction in the maintenance of divorced women who have a chance of getting better jobs. But Section 25A does help a little with this point. I feel that it is going to be very difficult for women to obtain jobs, particularly women in the 45-to-50 age bracket. I should like to know what might be the idea of the restricted specific period; whether it should be up to several months or a year that they could get some help. It appears to me that divorced women would be better off in Scotland, since paragraph 67 of the Scottish Law Commission report places a priority on the needs of children and makes detailed recommendations for fair sharing of matrimonial property and other assets in recognition of the contributions and disadvantages of both parents. I wonder whether later we could perhaps consider adopting some of the Scottish measures. This, I think, would be a fairer sharing of the economic burden of child care.
This Bill, as I understand it, requires the court to give first consideration to the welfare of any children when making orders for financial relief. But this Bill means more consideration in the financial arrangements and a greater emphasis to be placed on the parties becoming self-sufficient. I am sure that all people want to become self-sufficient, but I think it is going to be very hard for women to be self-sufficient, except after some time. I believe that the Law Commission (in paragraph No. 118) recommended that illegitimate children should be treated in the same manner as legitimate children in regard to maintenance payments. I do not know whether this could come under the Long Title of the Bill, but I hope it might be possible for consideration to be given to giving illegitimate children equality with other children by an amendment to this Bill, or by another Bill, perhaps, in the future. I feel that mothers should have the same rights as wives.
The "clean beak" can be made now; and, for parties with no children, this often happens. For spouses with children, the concept of a clean break from children and their needs is not very appropriate; nor does it generally express the desire of a non-custodial parent. I do not think that the non-custodial parent has been
82
mentioned before. It is not just more reasonable (as Section 25A(1) suggests) to order a clean break in the majority of families where there are children; but also the courts have power to make the break at the present time; so that I do not understand why it is in this Bill.
There is a fear that this Bill will mean greater poverty and hardship for the one-parent families by reducing or restricting maintenance payments to divorced women and by increasing bitterness and conflict between the divorcing couples and ignoring the plight of the children outside the marriage. When it is realised there are 1.6 million children living in one-parent families, I think that they are not likely to get very much help from this Bill. If a court considers that there is no continuing obligation to be imposed on either party, it may dismiss the application straight away and, I think I am correct in saying, the applicant is not entitled to make a further application. Also, the court can direct that a party shall not be entitled to an extension of maintenance payments. Perhaps, at a later date, I might get answers to the points to which I have drawn attention.
8.27 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the explanation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Clause 1, and I listened also to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, with very great interest and sympathy. But I am not altogether happy about it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, I am rather afraid that it will lead to some very young, immature couples saying, "Oh well, we can get a divorce after a year if it doesn't work". So that they will plunge into marriage without due consideration. When you are very young, say, 17 or 18, three years seems a very long time. After all, it is, perhaps, between one-fifth and one-sixth of your whole life. I think it is long enough for them to think: "If we have to to stick it out for three years, perhaps we had better not marry until we are more sure of our feelings". I think that, if they have married, the prospect of having to stick it out for three years might make them try a bit harder. I know a number of social workers feel like that.
In addition, there are two categories of people to whom I think this clause will be God's gift—or, perhaps, I should say, in the first category, "Allah's gift"—because there are in Pakistan marriage bureaux which, for a consideration, will arrange marriages between Pakistanis who want British nationality and British girls, the understanding being that divorce will follow as soon as it is legally possible. The immigration authorities are doing their very best to prevent this but I believe that quite a number still slip through their net; and those people will be absolutely delighted. Also, as the law in Scotland does, it will benefit a particularly nasty sort of young woman, the kind who marries a man for the sole reason that she wants to have a legitimate baby and, as soon as the baby is born, she leaves the man because she does not want to be bothered with a husband. Your Lordships may think I am romancing, but I can assure you that these people exist. I have met them.
Otherwise, my Lords, I welcome the Bill. The idea of trying to place both parties in the financial position in which they would have been had the marriage not

83
broken down is, I think, quite nonsensical. I cannot think how it will get through this House. If you cut a cake in half, you do not have two cakes; you have two half cakes.
I have heard certain representatives of the Church of England say: "Oh well, when people got married in church the bridegroom endowed his wife with all his worldly goods and that should last forever". I am very sorry, but very few bridegrooms now make that promise, thanks to the earning capacity of women and their reluctance to promise obedience to their husbands. Instead they say, "all my worldly goods with thee I share", but nothing is specified as to the proportions in which the worldly goods are going to be shared.
The 1969 Act and the 1975 inheritance act really were a gold-digger's charter. There always have been, and there always will be, girls who marry a rich young man for whom they do not particularly care; they stay with him long enough to have one or two children and then leave him for another whom they prefer, having collected a handsome settlement en route. I certainly do not see why they should get a caviar and champagne ticket for life. The courts usually award the custody of young children to the mother, even in cases where she is not really a very fit person to bring them up. They are frequently sympathetic to erring wives, so I do not think that this Bill will harm the children of divorcing couples. Indeed, Clause 3 specifies that the first consideration must be given to the children and I cannot see that there is any cause for concern on that account or for older women whose earning ability may be non-existent. I believe that the courts will look after them as they have always done hitherto.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I approach this Bill with a sense of unease and uncertainty—a sense of unease which not even the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his very illuminating introduction of the Bill, nor the persuasive comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have quite removed.
I want to concentrate on Part II of the Bill, although in passing I would just say I have some sympathy with those noble Lords who, in commenting on Part I, have said they are inclined to be persuaded that perhaps it would have been better for us to follow the Scottish example in this area. I would also say that I am sorry the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not followed his own inclinations and his own expressed sympathy towards an introduction of a family court; nor his sympathy towards conciliation services in the form of this Bill. However, as I say, I want to concentrate on Part II.
The Bill has abandoned the objective of the present law to place the parties in the same financial position in which they would have found themselves had the marriage not broken down. I understand the problems to which this principle has given rise but I do think we should at least admit that it was an attempt to realise equity between the parties, and it did express a general principle as to how to approach the breakdown of marriage.
84
It has been said of this Bill that it is an attempt to introduce greater equity between the parties involved. This is a very difficult objective to attain, particularly as in the majority of cases equity between the parties does not exist prior to the break-up of the marriage. let alone afterwards. I suppose it is not surprising that the objective of leaving the two parties in the same financial position has been abandoned because that objective really is one that is incapable of being achieved. We can only get two half-pints, not two pints, out of one pint.
Inevitably, therefore there is going to be suffering and financial deprivation in the majority of cases where a marriage has broken up, and I think this is the starting point. How is this suffering and deprivation to be shared between the two parties? The new and overriding objective of the Bill is to give precedence to the welfare of the children of the marriage, and this is an objective for which I think all noble Lords have expressed support, although some of us may differ as to how that objective is to be achieved.
I think we have to bear in mind all the time, however, that the welfare of the child or children will be very closely linked to the welfare of the party to whom custody of the children is given; and it is in cases where children are involved that to arrive at equity between the parties is most difficult. Here we are talking about 71 per cent. of divorce cases, or 60 per cent. if we consider only those cases involving children under 16—and, as many speakers have said, it is unrealistic to think in terms of children under 16.
There are two aspects to equity. One is the financial side and the other is equity in relation to the custody of the children and the day-to-day care of the children. The new reference in Section 25—and here I think we are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for reminding us that Section 25 remains very much as it was in the previous Act, with the exception of the reference to the children and with the exception to the reference to the earning capacity of the wife, and not only the present earning capacity but the future expected earning capacity of the wife——
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Baroness is not quite right there. The earning capacity is not limited to wives but applies to both parties.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I do thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for reprimanding me on that. Of course the earning capacity is related to spouses, but in the present situation I think he would agree that in the majority of cases it is the wife who has care and custody of the children and therefore it is the woman who is in the greatest difficulty in this respect.
When you take that particular subsection in the new Section 25 and relate it to the completely new Section 25A, which deals with the financial break, it seems to me, and it has seemed to a number of people and a number of organisations, that the position is being oversimplified and that the substantial difficulties of women in the employment field are not taken fully into account.
I have referred on many occasions in this House to the disadvantages of women in the labour market and

85
I do not want to go into details this evening; but I should just remind your Lordships of one or two facts. The average earning capacity of full-time women workers is 64 per cent. of the earning capacity of full-time male workers; that is the weekly earnings capacity. Therefore, the chances of a woman being able to maintain her children at a reasonable standard are considerably less than those of a man.
The reasons for these differences are partly cultural, partly educational and partly due to the family role. Indeed, recent research has indicated that it is the break in a woman's working life and her family role that accounts for the greatest difference in her earning capacity, compared with that of a man. A woman who has taken 10 years, or even the average of 7 years, out of her working life to have a family will not have the same earning capacity as a man who has remained in continuous employment—not only present but future earning capacity, because such women have lost their seniority and the possibility of promotion, time and time again, which affect not only present earnings but their capacity to earn an adequate retirement pension.
Therefore there are very real difficulties and, while I am reassured to some extent by what noble and learned Lords have said in the debate this afternoon, I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage, we shall look very carefully at these clauses to ensure that they cover the needs of the spouse who is given custody of the children, who, as I said, tends at the present time to be the woman.
That brings me to my second point, which is the custody of the children. Again, the reason for women being given custody is usually the cultural one that it is a mother's place to be with her children. In this respect, men suffer deprivation, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the report of the Law Commission, which states that they would like to see more awards of joint custody given. But in order to do this, we need to have more conciliation services. These have been referred to on many occasions this afternoon and I would say only that I very much support what has been said.
However, I would draw attention to the fact that even the consultation paper by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on this matter does not look at the conciliation services. The Booth Committee stated in their consultative paper that conciliation, such as the Bristol conciliation, is outside the matrimonial causes procedure and therefore they have not dealt with it in detail. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who said that the formal conciliation services within the courts are of little value, and I should like to think that we could give more resources to the conciliation services outside the courts.
Time is getting on and I shall merely say that there are many gaps in this Bill—gaps which have been referred to, gaps to which the Law Commission referred in their report and gaps in knowledge which make it difficult for us to decide at this stage what are the best procedures to be followed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his introduction that this was an urgent matter, but I wonder whether it is so urgent that we cannot stop and look at some of the areas, particularly the areas covering maintenance, where there are such tremen
86
dous gaps, before proceeding with the Bill. However, if the Bill receives the support of your Lordships' House, I hope that we shall take very seriously the recommendation of the Law Commission that the working of the new Act should be carefully monitored. Indeed, I hope that we shall follow the precedent cited in their report and require a periodic report to be laid before Parliament.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, when I am called upon to speak in a Second Reading debate at this late hour, I tend to be oppressed by the thought that everything that can properly be said has been said, and sometimes much else besides. But it is not idle courtesy to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or to the others who have taken part in this debate, to say that this has been a most useful debate, because it has enabled us to identify the issues raised by this Bill and, indeed, to identify to a large extent the matters which we shall be considering later in Committee, at Report and so on.
The noble and learned Lord started by saying that this Bill had, unfortunately, been widely misunderstood and misrepresented. If this debate has done nothing else, it has gone a long way to deal with those misconceptions, misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and we have been able to identify what I regard as the central issue in this Bill. What has emerged is that the parts of the Bill other than Part II are probably the parts about which there will not be any acute controversy. Those have received widespread support and the debate has centred upon the issues raised by Part II.
Of course, the basic, central issue which is raised by Part II, is the issue which was put in the report of the Law Commission in their summary of recommendations. I imagine that I shall be referring to these for the last time tonight. They stated:
"The provisions of section 25 of the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973 should he amended in the following respects:

(i) To seek to place the parties in the financial position in which they would have been had the marriage not broken down should no longer be the statutory objective.

(ii) The guidelines contained in section 25(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 should be revised, to give greater emphasis to the following matters:

(a) the provision of adequate financial support for children should be of overriding priority"—
then I omit some words which are not immediately relevant—
"(b) the importance of each party doing everything possible to become self-sufficient should be formulated in terms of a positive principle; and weight should be given to the view that, in appropriate cases, periodical financial provision should be primarily concerned to secure a smooth transition from the status of marriage to the status of independence."
The major issue with which we are confronted in the Bill is whether the intentions of the Law Commission, as expressed in those paragraphs, are in fact translated into the Bill. Two of the criticisms of the Bill, not so much in this House but outside, are directed less at the things which the Bill does than at the things which the Bill does not do. And two matters have been referred to more than once. The first criticism is that the Bill does not make any progress over setting up concilation schemes. The second criticism—certainly more from outside this House than within it—is that the Bill does

87
nothing to advance the solution of the problem of one-parent families.
When those criticisms are made, it should be borne in mind that the Law Commission themselves gave full consideration to them. They considered in some detail the concept of a conciliation scheme, preferably outside the legal process, and they came down very strongly in favour of it. Equally, they made it clear that they thought that the problem of one-parent families was of very considerable public concern. But, having considered those matters, they came to the conclusion—and I am bound to say that I believe they were right—that it would be inappropriate to defer the very important reform which this Bill accomplishes in order to take on board those other matters. More than that, they came to the conclusion that they did not think it was appropriate, in a Bill concerned with the reform of the private law in matrimonial cases, that one should try to incorporate a reform of the general public law about such matters as one-parent families. Therefore I believe that they were right and I am glad that the Bill as it is now written deals only with this major central issue.
The second problem which we shall have to consider, particularly in the later stages of the Bill—if, that is to say, we approve the general principle set out by the Law Commission—is whether the Bill does indeed achieve that purpose and whether it achieves it without going too far in the opposite direction and introducing some injustice on the other side.
There are two matters with which we are concerned, as I see it. First, we are concerned with the changes in the guidelines, as contained in the new Section 25. The House has enormously benefited from the close analysis of those guidelines and of the provisions of Section 25A that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. If only those observations and that analysis had been more widely available before this debate took place, many of the misconceptions which have arisen would have been averted. I hope that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, had to say tonight will be widely reported and fully considered by those who have had reservations about the Bill.
Having said that, may I conclude by saying that there are a number of matters of wording in the Bill which will have to be considered carefully in Committee. One example—I shall not weary the House by giving more than one—is the wording of the Bill so far as it relates to conduct and what it says about conduct. On this matter I take leave, with some hesitation and diffidence, to disagree a little with what the noble and learned Lord said about this in reproof of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that there is a provision about conduct in the present law. Under the present law, the court is enjoined to exercise its powers,
"so far as, having regard to the conduct of the parties, it is just to do so".
So conduct is already one of the considerations which the court has to consider and observe. The Bill provides for the same matter but in different words. The Bill provides that the court shall have regard to,
"the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it".
88
I differ a little from the noble and learned Lord because I am not quite sure what the difference is between something which it would be just to consider and something which it would be inequitable to ignore. At a later stage of the Bill perhaps we may enter into the semantic question as to what the exact difference is. The noble and learned Lord said that in his view the words in the new Bill are a restriction upon the words in the present Act. I took, curiously enough, exactly the opposite view. When they raised up the question of conduct from the tail end of the section and put it in with a piece of its own, I thought that the intention was to emphasise the importance of the court having regard to conduct. If that is right, I believe it is a retrograde step, because the more conduct can be kept out of the matter, especially in ancillary proceedings, the better. But I use it only as an illustration of the kind of matter which we shall have carefully to consider in the later stages of the Bill.
Again I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has proposed the Bill and for the very great assistance and guidance he has given to the House. For my part, I wish the Bill a fair wind and I hope it will receive the approval of the House.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if ever there were a field in which the legislator has to be careful it is the very field that we have journeyed through tonight. It is true to say that while one has to have moral values and standards, one cannot he merely the preacher. It is also true that while it is useful to have experience one cannot be only the practitioner. Lastly, it is true that although you have to have views you must not be only the partisan. It is indeed in that spirit that we have to look at a Bill of this kind, assisted as we always are by the reports of the Law Commission, for which this House ought to be most grateful, and assisted, too, by the guidance that we have had from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his opening remarks.
May I make it perfectly clear from this Dispatch Box—and I hope, in all humility, that this will be true of all parts of your Lordships'House—that we on these Benches do not intend to take a composite view on a Bill of this kind. It is wrong that one should take such a view. It is only right that everyone should be able to express an independent point of view. When we consider that in 1982 we reached the stage where over 170,000 petitions were filed, I suppose that every one of us would say—even though many of us are of years where this is no longer appropriate—"There, but for the grace of God, might go I." If we are of that age we say of our children and grandchildren, in an age when one in every three marriages ends in divorce, "There, but for the grace of God, go they". So that is the spirit, I suppose your Lordships would agree, one ought to have in looking at this Bill. Indeed one almost might echo the words of the prophet Micah in asking for guidance:
"What does the Lord ask of thee
except to act justly and to love mercy and"—
I put in parenthesis—
"to walk humbly with your God".

89
Having said that, I suppose it would be the view of everyone that the participants in this debate have all made a contribution, and a useful one. The fact that one differs in some ways with the provisions of the Bill, or the way they are worded, or the views as expressed by one or other of your Lordships, does not mean by any sort of count that it is not necessary to have some Bill at this stage to deal with some of these matters.
My Lords, can I get on immediately to the very first matter that in the course of this debate in your Lordships' House in some cases caused controversy, in other cases caution? That was the question of reducing to one year from three years the period within which a petition could or could not be filed. I would have said that there was not one voice that spoke up in support of the existing legal provision, which is of course that unless you can prove exceptional hardship in regard to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent you cannot bring your petition within three years. Nobody spoke in support of that, and those of us who practice in the law know what those difficulties are, and the obscene way in which the practitioner has to encourage the petitioner, thinking that he is doing his duty to his client, "Cannot you think of anything worse than that? Are you quite sure that is all that happened? I don't think that amounts to exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity." It is something which does not do very much to aid civilisation or social standards. So no one spoke in defence of it.
The only thing is, is this the appropriate time to deal with the period of three years and turn it into a period of one year? There I must say I have my doubts. I have my doubts, and I put them before the House with every respect, for the following reasons. You can measure statistics about the number of cases dealt with by the divorce courts. You have no statistics of those cases which are saved from the divorce courts. I know perfectly well from my own experience that there are so many cases of young people—we are obviously dealing in the main with young people when we are dealing with one year marriages or three year marriages—where a young and immature wife has returned from her honeymoon feeling that marriage is all the romance you see in the films or, these days, on television. Then comes the housework and waiting for the husband, or possibly doing a part-time job and then having to do all the drudgery of housework; the husband returns tired, and the romance does not seem to be there. There are many cases of that kind where sensible parents, sensible friends, sensible conciliation services where they do exist, indeed a sensible padre, if I may say so, if he has a chance, or the family doctor, have the opportunity of saying: "Now look, please do try again. In any event, my dear, you cannot get a divorce now; so try again; it can do no harm. You cannot get a divorce for three years, or two years. Go back and try". It is not always the case that there is the walk-out and therefore it is only a question of postponing it.
Therefore, I am a little apprehensive about the one year. I might be happier if it were two years. I am a little apprehensive about legislating at this moment before we have the further report of the Law Commission—and they are sitting on this matter and they will come out with a report one day on grounds
90
of divorce, which is the next thing they are talking about. Is it not a little premature to be legislating on a matter of this kind when the whole grounds for divorce are going to be looked at? It is a little premature to consider this before the Booth Report on procedure comes out. The Law Commission say in so many words that these procedural matters have to walk hand in hand with substantive law; otherwise you do not make sense of it. They have said that very clearly in this report. So, my Lords, I think possibly when we come to the Committee stage, individually, with our experience, pooling it, we may he able to get the right answer. I wonder whether this should be deferred. Is this the right period? I repeat that in no circumstances at all would I like the idea to go on very much longer of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity.
I then move on, if I may, to this question of the clean break, as it is called, the finite orders, the power of the court to say that a wife's petition for maintenance, or even a husband's, is dismissed, and therefore the party concerned cannot make one ever again. Then there is the question of periodical maintenance orders. It has been said in this debate that there has been much misrepresentation, much misunderstanding. I do not think one can blame the media. It may be that some organisations have become a little too optimistic about the meaning of the Bill. I am sure other Members of this House have had the same experience as myself. I must have had at least 100 letters during the past week asking me to support the Bill. The letters have come mainly from husbands, but also from a few wives, all of them, with only a few exceptions, have been in support of a situation in which they think that the day after the Bill is enacted they will all be able to go to court and end maintenance orders and end the situation under which they are burdened with looking after the first wife.
In case anyone thinks that these letters came from people who have not had the benefit of an education, a proper understanding, or whatever, may I move to the next important point. It is dangerous when making a provision of this kind because one can lead to that belief. One does not help the situation if the clause that is put into a Bill is not as precise as it can he made. Here, again with humility, I differ from those who have spoken in this debate and even from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for whom I have absolutely limitless respect and admiration. It is not proper to say that where one gives the court unfettered discretion in an "appropriate"case—and that is the only guidance anyone has given—that one makes the finite order or the periodical order or dismisses the prayer for maintenance. That is not good enough.
In case your Lordships think that this is not a view that should have anyone's regard for a moment, may I point out that The Times takes that view. It does so in an editorial in this morning's paper headed "When a marriage has broken down". Your Lordships will forgive me if I quote from it. I am not going to deal with the previous question. The editorial states:
"That apart, the Bill is quite directionless. Nothing is said about the aims to be pursued when a 'clean break' is not appropriate (presumably the majority of cases), nor about how the court is to decide when such an order would be appropriate.
"There must of course be flexibility in this branch of the law, because of the widely varying facts of each case, but there is a real danger that the almost complete lack of guiding principles in the Bill

91
would create widespread uncertainty and inconsistency of practice. The danger here is particularly acute because the decisions involve the exercise of a judicial discretion and so are rarely appealable. The courts are entitled to more guidance than this from Parliament".
So is the practitioner entitled to more guidance when advising a client, and before accumulating costs, in order to create new precedents and, indeed, to find what a court may direct. As practitioners we will have to advise people who come to us and say with this new Bill, "Have we got a chance of ending it all?" This clause ought to contain words which guide the courts and tell them that, among other things on which they will have a discretion, they should take into account the length of the marriage, the state of the employment market and matters of that kind. No one knows where they stand.
I now deal with the last couple of points that I wanted to make.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, could he say whether he would enjoy drafting those particular guidelines?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I always enjoy answering the noble Lord, Lord Morris, when he intervenes but I am afraid that is where my enjoyment ends. I hope that with others of your Lordships' House it may well be possible to draft such an amendment. I believe that as legislators we will not be doing our job if we do not. I remind the noble Lord and your Lordships that judges, county court as well as High Court judges, registrars, and so on, are hut human. I assure your Lordships that the definition of "appropriate" may well be different in Suffolk from Southwark and may well be different in High gate from Harwich. It is not good enough merely to deal with these terribly important changes by using the word "appropriate".
So, with the leave of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I move on to conduct. Here I find myself with great pleasure echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. If I may, I would put it in this way. I think that this was the noble Lord's point and therefore I am indebted to him for it; I know that he will not think that this is plagiarism. It is obviously good legislation when you do things, if you can, positively and not negatively. You are being positive when you introduce the question of conduct when it just to do so. That is a positive comment. You do things negatively and with some obscurity if you say that you ignore, if you like, conduct unless it is inequitable so to do.
Again I speak with humility as a legal practitioner, but I can foresee the amount of legal aid money—quite apart from the private purse—being spent upon arguing before the courts cases of conduct where the clients will say, "You put this forward, because it would be quite inequitable in my view if the court did not know how my wife had behaved, and quite inequitable and negligent of you not to put it forward"; on the other hand, "What an absolute"—I cannot find a noun suitable for your Lordships' House—"my husband is and has been during the course of our marriage".
We shall be bringing conduct right into matters of ancillary relief in divorce cases. We shall be doing the very thing which we have been trying hard to avoid doing and which we managed to escape when we
92
altered the rules of divorce by introducing the concept of a marriage which had irretrievably broken down. That will not do any good for the parties and it will not do any good for the children.
I could talk in terms of maintenance and relief of maintenance in certain low income cases, but we do not have time for it, so I merely deal very briefly with the question of conciliation. I find it regrettable, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, that we have not moved on with encouragement for conciliation when dealing with a Bill of this kind. With great respect, it is no answer at all to say that these are procedural matters—fiscal matters—and they need not and should not be incorporated into this Bill. If that had been the argument, I should have been perfectly content if the thinking had been contemporaneous with this Bill and announcements were made in regard to conciliation services at the same time as the passage of this Bill.
There is not the slightest doubt but that good is being done by voluntary organisations like that in Bristol which are at this moment almost bereft of funds. It would be quite wrong if a debate took place at Second Reading on a Bill of this kind which dealt with maintenance, ancillary relief and all the other things and we did not think in terms positively of encouraging those conciliation services.
If I may say so, I think that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was talking about these matters, he confused reconciliation and conciliation. As your Lordships will realise, I say this with great deference. People can say that when a marriage has broken down, as a rule it is too late to do the reconciliation job. We are not talking about that in the main. When we talk about conciliation, we mean getting people round a table and dealing with these questions of periodical orders, financial orders, can the wife obtain employment, and so on. We are talking of getting round a table in a civilised way and not in the antagonistic and adversarial way that we have to in the courts at the present moment.
I think that your Lordships have heard me enough. I say in conclusion—this being a personal point of view, as I have said, although I am privileged to speak from this Dispatch Box—there is much that has to be done by a Bill of this kind and therefore should be done, but there is much that has to be looked at with the greatest caution when we come to the Committee stage.
9.19 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lords who have played a part in this debate, particularly, if I may be allowed to say so, my noble and learned friends on the Cross Benches, my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I should also like to congratulate the maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I wish that I had more time in which to do so, but it would make it more difficult to say what I have to say if I expatiated on it.
If I may, I shall try to pick out some of the questions so far as they are relevant on Second Reading. I fear that this will mean that I must leave either to correspondence or altogether many of the interesting

93
points which have been made. First, I should like to commend to the House something which was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. The whole of the discussible part of the Bill has been
processed by the Law Commission in three separate reports. That has meant that it has produced provisional conclusions in a working paper, which has been circulated. It has gone through the consultation process. It has then gone through the reconsideration process. Lastly, there has emerged a final report, and at last, with some difficulty, I have secured a slot in the legislative programme for what I believe to be an essential piece of social reform.
Therefore I commend the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman that the Law Commission is entitled to a prima facie view that what it says is probably the best of what is necessarily a series of compromises between divergent considerations, all of which have a certain validity. I add to that my own conclusion that the truth is that there is no way to handle the ancillary orders to be made after divorce—whether one is dealing with access, custody, care and control, or with financial maintenance, the distribution of assets, or the matrimonial home—except to give the courts the considerations which they ought to bear in mind, and then to give the greatest flexibility in order to give effect to those considerations. That is what the existing law has attempted to do, and what this Bill attempts to do a little better.
The law is like a new shoe. After 12 years it has been found to pinch various parts of the foot, and it is known very much where are the points at which it pinches. The object is to ease the shoe at the points of which it is known to give trouble, and not to reduce—but rather, if anything, to increase—the flexibility given to the courts.
I have been taken to task for not including a large number of matters which interest noble Lords. I start by defending myself against that charge. I did not of course introduce the vexed question of illegitimacy, or the whole question of one-parent families. As a matter of fact I have already accepted the illegitimacy report (No. 118) as a valuable piece of law reform, and I should wish to see it implemented as soon as resources become available. But it is quite clear that this Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for that subject. Apart from anything else, it would involve the complete abolition of affiliation proceedings, and it would not be within the compass of this Bill.
Secondly, I have been taken to task—I forget exactly by which noble Lords—for not introducing into the Bill the Law Commission reports relating to matrimonial property. The House will remember that we had at least two debates (I think in two successive Sessions) at the instance of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I would remind the House that when I pointed out the relationship which must exist between matrimonial property and dissolution of marriage, my noble friend said very firmly to me, "My proposals have to do with property during marriage, and have nothing whatever to do with the distribution of assets after marriage". And he was right. That alone is an adequate reason for not including such a matter in the present Bill.
94
I was also slightly criticised, although in a friendly kind of way, by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, about the need for research. I fully agree. With the help of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, I am looking into a feasibility study with a view to undertaking precisely the research that he recommended into the effect of maintenance orders, and so on. Meanwhile, valuable but limited research is being carried out by such bodies as the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, and the Department of Social Administration at Bristol University. However, I cannot really wait for that research. Nor do I think that when it comes it will yield new material which would lead me, at any rate, to want to see any of the terms of the present Bill altered. I agree about the necessity. I plead not guilty to an omission that would alter the terms of the Bill by not dealing with it now.
The same would be true of the demand for research into the cost of maintaining a child. This will he valuable whenever it comes and whatever its results, but I do not think that it will alter the terms of this Bill at all. I cannot see why it should be held to be a necessary preliminary to legislating the issues raised by the Bill. This was recommended. It is shortly intended to publish in the document known as Court Business information for registrars giving them the current scales of supplementary benefit rates and the fostering rates provided by the National Foster Care Association. These are figures already within the public domain, but it is possible that not every registrar knows the exact amount. However, I must say—I say it rather firmly to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris—that a child who is the subject of a broken marriage deserves a little better from caring parents than the mere cost of his maintenance. He is entitled to look to the whole assets of the marriage and the whole assets of both parents to give him something better than that. It may take the form of an education; it may be amenities of all kinds. I cannot therefore see that that ought to be used as an argument for postponing this Bill.
I wish next to say something about conciliation. I got the impression that a number of noble Lords and Baronesses who spoke were not aware that I am pressing ahead with conciliation throughout the country. Admittedly, it is in-court conciliation. But that is the inevitable step to take if you are going to have a standardised system of conciliation throughout the divorce courts in the country. There is no other way of doing it. I am perfectly familiar with the work of out of court conciliation done in Bristol and one or two other places, but I cannot standardise that at the moment. Even if I could, it could not go into the Bill. I conclude my remarks on conciliation by saying that, as a matter of fact, it can be done without legislation at all. I hope that, in the end, we shall be able to do it either by administrative action or by rules of court. It is not necessary to put it into this Bill. I must emphasise this: nor would there be the smallest justification, if the provisions of this Bill are otherwise acceptable, to postpone any of them to the advance of conciliation. That will be a bonus whether you keep the law as it is, whether you alter it, or however you alter it.
Having dealt—I hope not too summarily—with the alleged sins of omission, to which I do not plead guilty

95
at all, I should like to turn to some of the issues that have been raised as matters of principle to the main provisions of the Bill. First, as regards the time bar I must say that I am utterly unrepentant. I noted that in his criticism of it the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, found not a good word to say for the present situation. I am sorry to cross swords with the right reverend Prelate especially in view of the rather generous words which he spoke of me, which I would not have attempted to apply to myself. However, I think he will see that, on the whole, those who have spoken most warmly in favour either of the particular time bar provided by the Bill, or some alternative time bar, were precisely those who had familiarity with the misery and unhappiness which is caused at the moment.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will take that back to his church authorities because I must say to him in all gentleness that of course the Church—by which he meant and I mean, the Church of England in this connection—is entitled to what he called a "dual role"; that is to say, it is entitled to legislate for its own communicants, and it is entitled to express an opinion about matters of social policy and the stability of the family and marriage. However, I must say to him that it is one thing to say that you want marriages to last, and that people ought to be encouraged to make marriages last, as I said in my opening speech. I happen to think that people flounce out of marriage too easily and I would very much agree to any proposal which advised them to give the marriage a serious second chance. I even issued a much more formidable warning against divorce than anything which was uttered by the episcopal mouth. Alas! as we shall see as we go along, marriage may be dissoluble but divorce is only too often indissoluble and lasts, painfully. for the rest of the parties' lives.
However, having said that, and having reminded the right reverend Prelate of his own statement that there are a large number of divorce petitions presented at whatever time after the celebration of the marriage which do not culminate in a decree of dissolution, I say that that is an argument which cuts both ways. The right reverend Prelate has produced not an atom of evidence that the reconciliation was brought about by the three year bar—not one. Nor has he—and this goes much more deeply to the root of his case—produced any reason whatever to suppose that to place the parties in a straitjacket when they believed that their marriage had irretrievably broken down, made them more and not less likely to come to a reconciliation. All that is done by putting the parties into that position is to encourage fornication and adultery.
I say to the right reverend Prelate rather firmly that I have been a communicant of the Church of England since I was 14, and my daughter, who practises in family law, has been a confirmed member of the Church of England ever since she was about 14. But I find it rather sad that the Church of England on this particular matter allowed the working paper to go by; they were asked for their views; they gave no sign of interest at all; and they were the only major religious body who did not reply at all. They allowed the report to come out and they took no interest at all for a year. They then issued a document which said that the report had come out six weeks before theirs, when in
96
fact they had remained silent for a year. I must say to them that they have shown no interest at all, so far as I know, in the views which may be held strongly—and in my case are held very strongly—by the communicant members of their own body who have some familiarity with the practice of the Family Division and who know something of the misery and the unhappiness which is caused by limping marriages. If they had only done so, I do not believe that they would have acted as they did: nor do I believe that there is any rational basis at all for the attitude which they adopt.
I hope that when the right reverend Prelate reports to his colleagues about this time bar business he will at least report that it is very sad that the Church of England seeks to use the law as a tool for encouraging reconciliation when there is no evidence whatever that it helps in that way and when—alas!—there is a great deal of evidence—and to my mind largely conclusive evidence—in the Scottish experience which shows that it makes not the slightest difference except to encourage limping marriages.
I come now to the question of the clean break. I hope that noble Lords who have taken part in this debate will recognise from what I said in opening—and I have the impression that some of the speeches had been prepared rather carefully before they heard mine—that it is not in the least the intention, either of the Law Commission or of the Government, to disregard the rather obvious facts with regard to a wife's loss of earning capacity during the course of her marriage. especially when, as the result of the dissolution, she has the sole care and control or the custody of the children. On the contrary, I believe that the situation should be broadly as it is: that the husband of the defunct marriage owes a continuing obligation to the spouse which is not different in either quantity or quality from what he owes at the moment.
These are obvious considerations. They are taken into account by the registrars and judges as they stand, and there is not the smallest intention of disturbing them. But I must say this to critics, where they exist: that the assumption has been—even from the various noble Baronesses who have taken part—that it is the divorced wife who is the only woman in the case. That is not so. Of the vast number of letters that I have received, by far the bitterest have come from second wives. Of course, one never knows what the first wife would have said because unfortunately I have not yet received letters about the same marriage from the opposite parties; if I had, I think that I would have passed them on one to the other and I might have learned a little more. What is said by the second wife (and who knows whether it is true or false) is "Look, this woman"—meaning the first wife—"is living with her boyfriend who is very well off. She is getting maintenance from my husband and I have to go out to work, leaving my family at home in the hands of an unsuitable baby sitter in order to keep her". I am sure that some of the letters I have received have been reflecting fact; they certainly reflected feeling.
Therefore, it is important for noble Baronesses and others to realise that when you are dealing with divorce, very often you are dealing with two women, each on a different side of the fence; and, if I may say

97
so to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that is true whether you are middle or working class.
I now come to conduct. I really did not agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. The advice that I have received—and not the advice I am giving—is that the words in the Bill represent the view which registrars take—that is to say, the people who do the work on the ground—of what they are doing now in the light of the aftermath to Wachtel. Wachtel introduced a rhetorical phrase, the context of which was well explained by my noble and learned friends Lord Denning and Lord Roskill. In relation to misconduct it used the rhetorical phrase "gross and obvious", which was incapable of being reduced to an Act of Parliament. Registrars found that it was offensive to their conscience to have to give effect to it where it clearly was inequitable to disregard conduct. They found that there were a number of cases where, if they had given literal effect to it, they would be violating their own consciences. I am told that the wording of the Act which emerges from the judiciary, which has to operate this, is precisely what they are doing now. I do not think that there will be much difficulty in the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, advising his clients, provided he takes account of what is now happening.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am tempted to rise for only one second to say to the noble and learned Lord that the view that I expressed was one that is shared by many legal practitioners who are specialists in this field. The very fact that he mentioned that Wachtel v. Wachtel is being followed at the moment means that anything in its place must be abundantly clear if it is not to lead to a lot of litigation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it obviously has to he abundantly clear, but it must be sufficiently flexible to enable registrars to do justice in the light of the almost infinite variations of conduct and of non-conduct which take place. I simply do not think that it is possible to disregard conduct. One has to remember certain things which have not been stressed. First, that conduct can be good as well as bad. It can be good in favour of the deserted wife who has had to look after children when she has been deserted just as much as it can be good in favour of the husband. It can be bad, and very bad. One has known many cases in one's professional experience where the husband knocks his wife about and leaves her penniless. Sometimes he deliberately goes on supplementary benefit rather than pay his wife a penny. Is one really to say that these things are not to be taken into account in any circumstances? We are doing no more than represent the ordinary conscience of mankind by trying to insert this in an intelligent form, although not in an inflexible form, in the Bill.
I have dealt with a number of these cases. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, pointed out that maintenance contributes only 12 per cent., I think he said, of the total content of what is received by these divorced families, because the hard fact of life is—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord
98
Hatch of Lusby, would echo this—that in practically no circle of society can a man keep two separate households with two separate sets of children. This is the problem we are faced with. That is a fact to bear in mind, rather than to treat as a criticism of, or a reason for supporting, the Bill.
There is one matter on which I differed from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I think there was practically only one thing on which I differed from him at all. I do not think that the clean break ought to be available only where there are no children. I can think of cases, and not a few, where there is an uncaring parent who has left his, or her, children—whichever sex that parent belongs to—and remains without any interest in them at all. In such a case the clean-break principle may well be available against him, or her, even if there are children. The children's welfare is admittedly something which one has to take into account as a first consideration both in distributing the assets and in considering the ancillary problems in deciding whether a clean break is desirable or not, and it will be.
I am very conscious that I spoke for a long time in opening and now I am speaking a long time in replying, but it is a subject which merits consideration. So far as regards family courts, which I should have dealt with when I was dealing with my alleged sins of omission, I take the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. I regard the modest proposals in Part V, I think it is, as a way of paving the way to family courts. But it is not simply a question of resources, although resources are involved. Originally, when I plotted this Bill, I wanted to amalgamate the jurisdictions of the High Court and the county court, which I think will still be a desirable step further along that road. But one cannot deal with family courts until one decides what to do with affiliation proceedings and the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in matrimonial cases. We are not ready to do that, nor are we ready fully to legislate on the subject until we have digested the Booth Committee's proposals which are still in their consultative phase. I say sincerely that I think we have done the best that can be done with an almost incredibly complicated subject.
I would just say this to those who rather depreciated the role which lawyers can play in this case. We are always supposed to live in an ivory tower of our own while the social consciences of ordinary people are more fully engaged than we are in the hardships and injustices which an inequitable law provides. I believe that that is the opposite of the truth. I was called to the Bar in 1932 and I have been facing the facts of divorce in one way or another ever since; that is 50 years. I say from the bottom of my heart, with my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, with my noble and learned friends Lord Scarman and Lord Roskill, and with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, this is the best that can be done at the present time. Delay is not desirable. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

"Free Pardon": Proposed Legislation
9.46 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale rose to move to resolve that, in order to give effect to the desire of Her Majesty's Government that Parliament should express its opinion on the question whether the term "free pardon" should be replaced by an expression denoting exoneration rather than forgiveness (Cmnd. 8856, paragraph 19), this House would welcome legislation to give effect to such a change.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this topic has been a hobby-horse of mine for some time. I remember raising it at Question Time when the late Lord Dilhorne was Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor expressed a view that the expression "Free Pardon" was well understood. I am sure it is well understood by lawyers; but it is expecting rather much of the man in the street to expect him to understand that in this particular case the word "pardon" is being used in a very special and peculiar way. That it is so is made abundantly clear by Sir Frank Newsam, who was Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, in his book entitled "The Home Office". Sir Frank writes at page 114,
"A Free Pardon wipes out not only the sentence or penalty, but the conviction and all its consequences, and from the time it is granted leaves the person pardoned in exactly the same position as if he had never been convicted".
Why is it then called a "free pardon"? I believe that the answer lies in history. I believe that there was a time when it was thought unwise to admit publicly that the High Court was capable of injustice and so the free pardon was a device whereby the court's authority and dignity was upheld and ultimate justice could still be done to the wrongly convicted person.
The Home Affairs Committee of another place in its Sixth Report in the 1981–82 Session entitled "Miscarriages of Justice"(it is House of Commons paper 421) said in its recommendation at paragraph 31:
"We wish finally to comment on the use of the traditional phrase 'free pardon'. The word 'pardon' implies a state of guilt for which some kind of official absolution is required, and is clearly inappropriate to a situation in which a man is finally pronounced to be innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.
"We consider that the introduction of a new procedure for the investigation of possible miscarriages of justice should also provide the occasion for the replacement of the term 'free pardon' by some word bearing the correct connotation of annulment, cancellation or revocation of a conviction".
The Government published their reply to that report in Cmnd. 8856 and in paragraph 19 they say:
"If, as suggested in the preceding paragraphs, a free pardon should continue to be granted only where innocence seems to be established, the Government understand why the use of the term 'pardon' may be thought not entirely appropriate. But to confer a power expressly to annul, cancel or revoke a conviction would require legislation. The Government will give further thought to this matter when a suitable opportunity for legislation arises. And would meanwhile welcome the further expression of Parliamentary and public opinion on the question".
I suppose that the appropriate way in another place of discovering parliamentary opinion is by means of the Early Day Motion procedure, which we do not have here. As far as I know, the only way of finding out the opinion of your Lordships is by holding a debate. I
100
hope I have said enough to introduce the topic and I think I had better stop talking and listen to the views of other noble Lords. May I say that if I am challenged to put an expression in place of "free pardon", I merely suggest a "grant of exoneration". But it may well be that wiser heads than mine will think of a better and more appropriate phrase. I beg to move.
Moved, To resolve that, in order to give effect to the desire of Her Majesty's Government that Parliament should express its opinion on the question whether the term "free pardon" should be replaced by an expression denoting exoneration rather than forgiveness (Cmnd. 8856, paragraph 19), this House would welcome legislation to give effect to such a change.—(Lord Airedale.)
9.52 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, there is merit in preserving old traditions even when they are for all practical purposes nonsense with reality. I submit, however, that there is absolutely no merit in continuing out-of-date traditions where they are misleading to the general public and, more importantly, a slight not understood by those directly concerned. I have some sympathy with the Scottish practice of sometimes giving a verdict of non-proven; but those who know about this would draw conclusions between this and our own idea of free pardon. The feeling there, of course, is that the person is not guilty and has merely been pardoned. It may be that some people would consider that this issue is not of great importance, bearing in mind the number of people concerned and that they would not have raised it themselves. But the noble Lord who has raised this Motion has done rightly in my view and our support for him should therefore be wholehearted.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part briefly in this important debate, partly because it does not often happen in this life that one is able in a debate to find oneself in a position where there is everything to be said on one side and nothing to be said on the other. That is one reason why I take satisfaction in joining in the debate. Nothing could be more ridiculous than the words "free pardon". Both words are inappropriate. "Pardon" is obviously inappropriate if you are exonerating somebody who has been wrongly convicted. What does "free" mean? Does it mean that he has not paid for it? This is something which, in a small way, brings the law into disrepute. I have known cases where people have been convicted for speeding and what has happened is that the police have followed them, taken their speed over a certain distance and then it has been found subsequently that the police misunderstood the distance, that they got it wrong. Therefore for all the people who have been concerned with that particular car or that particular police officer over that particular distance, the conviction has to be cancelled. Therefore they are granted a free pardon. My Lords, I should hesitate to use in this House the sort of language that is used by people who find themselves in that situation. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting this Motion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful, even at this late hour, to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for introducing this fascinating subject. It affects rather more persons than at first meets the eye. If one looks at the report of the Home Affairs Committee on miscarriages of justice and sees the number of free pardons, in 1980 there were as many as 270, and the total over the years from 1972 to 1980 was 2,180. So this is a frequent occurrence in the course of the administration of justice. That is why perhaps one sees that the Home Office view is that if the change is to be made it should be done by legislation. It is not a sort of hole-in-the-corner administrative act: it has a far wider implication. At the moment I suppose the rare event of executive interference with the judiciary, by way of the Home Secretary granting a free pardon, is an exercise—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will correct me if I am wrong—of the Royal Prerogative.
So one is in a rather difficult constitutional field here, I think; rather more complicated than at first meets the eye. But looking at the etymological history of the words "free pardon", a look at the dictionaries provides fascinating answers. The Oxford Dictionary describes "pardon" as:
"To remit the penalty …; to pass over (an offence or offender) without punishment or blame; to forgive."
The point the noble Lord is making is that that is an implication that there was blame somewhere and this is a passing over of blame. But Stroud in his Judicial Dictionary, which happily is still of some weight and authority—thank goodness! because, speaking for myself, I refer to it so frequently in a difficult forensic moment—defines a "free pardon" as follows:
"What is the effect of a free pardon? It is clear that it extends to far more than merely acquitting of punishment. It is, in fact, a purging of the offence. In Hale … it is stated that the King's pardon takes away poenam et culpam."
Punishment and blame, I think, if my grammar school Latin is right, and happily the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not here to correct me.
"…in Hawk…it is said that 'the pardon of a treason or felony, even after a conviction or attainder, does so far clear the party from the infamy and all other consequences of his crime that he may not only have an action for a scandal in calling him traitor or FELON after the time of the pardon, but may also be a good witness notwithstanding the attainder or conviction, because the pardon makes him, as it were, a new man and gives him a new capacity and credit.' "
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords——
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Viscount interrupting me in this charming discourse?
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, if I may, because I think that the noble and learned Lord is saying that what was meant before implied that the person concerned had been guilty of a crime. What we are saying is that the pardon we want does not imply there was any crime beforehand. Those concerned are completely discharged. Everything that the noble and learned Lord has been saying implies that they had a crime and they committed a crime.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount did not allow me to continue my discourse, because, as I have said, there was certainly one historical period when the effect of a pardon was almost an ennoblement, an adornment—more than a mere exculpation. To complete my etymological semantic survey, Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law repeats much the same language as the language of Stroud:
"The effect of a pardon is to make the offender a new man (novus homo) to acquit him of all corporal penalties and forfeitures annexed to the offence pardoned, and not so much to restore his former as to give him new credit and capacity. Nevertheless the judgment remains formally unreversed."
I sympathise with the point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. All I am saying is that a free pardon has acquired a certain significance in the mind's eye, perhaps even in the public's eye, as something more than a mere remission of a crime; something more significant than that.
I am not sure that I am very impressed with the proposed alternative of a grant of exoneration. I am not very sure about that, purely as a matter of semantics. However, what appears to be clear is that if we are to embark upon this—I am sorry that I am taking so much time; I shall not be much longer—field of the Royal Prerogative it may well need legislation to cure it. That is all I say. I am naturally grateful to the noble Lord for introducing us to this enticing subject, which leaves something to be done.
10.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for this opportunity to consider a matter on which the Government have invited parliamentary and public comment. The noble Lord has asserted consistently for many years that the term "free pardon" is not an entirely appropriate description of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy when that mercy is applied to persons who, having been convicted of an offence, appear to have been proved innocent of it. It has been suggested that where a convicted person is proved innocent and has been granted a free pardon in its present form, the idea might still linger on that he or she was in fact guilty but had earned the pardon or qualified for it by some means other than the establishment of his or her innocence. Over the years, much thought has been given to the possibility of replacing the term with an expression suggesting exoneration rather than forgiveness. I find myself instantly using the word suggested by the noble Lord himself. I think I had better start my reply to the noble Lord's very able exposition of his views by outlining briefly how the present system works, the role of the Home Secretary and the effect of a free pardon. First, I must emphasise that there is one fundamental constitutional principle to which successive Home Secretaries have always had due regard. It is the principle that the executive should not interfere with, or overrule, the decisions of the judiciary, save in the most exceptional circumstances. If it appears that there is a need to amend a judicial decision, the best course will normally be for the courts themselves to do it.
In practice, therefore, the Home Secretary will not normally consider recommending the grant of a free

103
pardon in cases where a more straightforward legal remedy exists as an alternative. Where, for example, he is able under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer a matter to the Court of Appeal for determination, that is what he will do. Given the existence of this alternative power, a free pardon is normally recommended only when two preconditions are satisfied: first, there must not merely be doubts about the defendant's guilt; there must be convincing grounds for thinking that he is innocent. Nor is it sufficient for this purpose that the defendant is merely "technically" innocent of the offence. The grant of a free pardon is confined as far as possible to those who are innocent morally as well as technically.
This is the so-called "clean hands" doctrine. Before he recommends a free pardon, the Home Secretary must be satisfied both that the defendant had no intention of committing an offence and that in fact he did not commit one. Secondly, there must be good reason why the matter cannot be referred to the courts—the lapse of time since the original trial, for instance, or the nature of the evidence which has called the conviction into question.
The broad principles which govern the use of the Prerogative apply to cases tried summarily, just as they do to those tried on indictment. But the Prerogative is more freely used in the former category. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, gave us the total number of cases since 1972. It was a little higher than the total number of cases which I gave since 1973, which is 2,146 for summary cases. This compares with something like eight over the same period for cases tried on indictment. One reason for this is that in summary cases there is no provision corresponding to Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by which the Home Secretary can refer a case back to the courts. This is a matter which the Government have under consideration and to which I shall return later—but not much later.
Another reason for the freer use of the Prerogative in summary cases is that the much larger number of cases which come before magistrates' courts and the highly technical content of much of the legislation involved, particularly in road traffic cases—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who instanced some of them—make it almost inevitable that a number of clear miscarriages of justice will occur because of defects in prosecution and court procedure. In many such cases the defendant will, for reasons of which many of us will be all too readily aware, have pleaded guilty. If he has, he has no right of appeal against conviction and there is some legal doubt whether the straightforward remission of a sentence awarded in such cases would also remove any associated suspension or endorsement of a driving licence.
The "clean hands" doctrine is in practice therefore somewhat modified in its application to road traffic cases. A free pardon is normally recommended whenever a conviction resulting in an endorsement or disqualification is shown to be defective. A typical example of such a case is where a number of motorists have been convicted of exceeding the speed limit on a particular stretch of road and it is later discovered that the limit is, due to some procedural or technical defect, invalid: there was no speed limit. But in general the
104
power to recommend the grant of a free pardonis used sparingly. The Prerogative is seen as a long stop, used in the last resort to rectify miscarriages of justice which the courts have failed to prevent and which they cannot reasonably be asked to put right. The nature and effect of the Royal Prerogative are not defined by statute—hence much reading by noble and learned Lords opposite.
A "free pardon" is regarded as relating to the conviction rather than to the convicted person. It is called, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Foot, a free pardon because it is free from any conditions. It has nothing to do with its value. The warrant signed by Her Majesty the Queen, in which she signifies that it is her pleasure to grant a free pardon, contains the words:
"grant him our free pardon in respect of the said conviction, thereby pardoning, remitting and releasing unto him all pains, penalties and punishments whatsoever that from the said conviction may ensue".
The warrant is placed with the court record and its effect is to divest the conviction of any force or consequences so far as legal penalties are concerned. Steps are also taken to ensure that the conviction is expunged from police records.
The question whether a free pardon goes beyond relieving persons of the legal penalties attaching to a conviction has never been legally tested and the full and precise effects in law of a free pardon are not therefore beyond doubt. In the past, some authorities have considered that the grant of a free pardon cancels or annuls a conviction, but this is not settled law and is not beyond question. The alternative view is that a free pardon merely removes the penal consequences of a conviction and that that is all the prerogative power can do. In other words, it absolves a convicted person from all or any of the punishments imposed by the court but does not actually quash or annul the conviction in quite the same way as an appellate court can. This is so, even though measures are also taken, as I have explained, to ensure that the conviction is not held against the person in any future proceedings, at least without the pardon also being mentioned. The difference between a free pardon and having one's conviction quashed is therefore a fine and perhaps rather academic one, but it is conceivable that it might occasionally give rise to a feeling of injury. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was quite right to suggest that it was not a simple matter, although it affected a large number of people.
There has, as a result, been a longish search for a preferable alternative. Terms such as "acquittal by Royal Prerogative", "absolute vindication" and "annulment of conviction" have all been considered; but so far no such expression has been thought to be entirely satisfactory. This is usually because they have a judicial flavour and might blur the distinction between the prerogative and judicial processes, which it has been considered important to preserve.
The noble Lord refers in his Motion to the Sixth Report of the Home Affairs Committee. They recommended, inter alia, that the term "free pardon" be replaced by some word bearing the correct connotation of annulment, and so on. But, as I have mentioned, as the law stands at present a free pardon, however it is expressed, does not in fact carry that connotation. As was stated in the Government's

105
response to the Report, and as the noble Lord has helpfully acknowledged, to confer such power would require legislation. This is not, therefore, a straightforward matter of a change of name.
Earlier, I referred briefly to the consideration now being given to possible legislation in respect of those cases tried summarily which are eventually seen to be defective and which, in the absence of any other legal remedy, now attract the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The Government are considering proposals which would reduce the number of cases in which the Royal Prerogative would be necessary in such circumstances. The obvious remedy is to provide a power to refer questionable convictions recorded in summary proceedings back to the courts.
I think your Lordships will probably agree that legislation to enable that to be done calls for higher priority than legislation to alter the effects of a free pardon or to change the name by which it is known. The number of cases in question is very much greater, and getting them out of the way, so to speak, would simplify the remaining issues concerning free pardons and their effects.
My Lords, the Government are most grateful to the noble Lord for leading the discussion which they have invited on this issue and giving me the opportunity to give a disproportionately full answer to the debate. He has given us a good deal to think about and we shall certainly reflect on the matter in the interval before any suitable legislative vehicle comes before Parliament.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and to the Minister for his lucid explanation of how the system works. In a word, my concern is this. If a typical family reads that Jim has been granted a free pardon, if they have access to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary they will arrive at the conclusion that he has been entirely acquitted from all blame; but my fear is that, the way things are, many of them will suppose that Jim committed an offence for which for some special reason they do not understand he has been granted forgiveness. That is the state of affairs which I am seeking to change. The Government have asked Parliament's opinion. Your Lordships have expressed your opinion this evening. I think it very much supports the case that I presented to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standard Chartered Merchant Bank Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter-past ten o'clock.

  SHOTGUN CERTIFICATES: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
  SHOTGUN CERTIFICATES: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
  PRISONS: NEW BUILDING AND STAFFING
  PRISONS: NEW BUILDING AND STAFFING
  LEGAL AID: VAT PAYMENTS
  LEGAL AID: VAT PAYMENTS
  LIFE PEERAGES
  LIFE PEERAGES
  BRITISH APPROVALS BOARD FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  BRITISH APPROVALS BOARD FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  ECGD: LOSSES WRITTEN OFF
  ECGD: LOSSES WRITTEN OFF
  STRAW BURNING
  STRAW BURNING
  THE EWE PREMIUM
  THE EWE PREMIUM