Sitting of 30 November 1983

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

    Training Initiatives
    Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce further training initiatives in Scotland in respect of people who have been unemployed for more than two years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allen Stewart): The Government have just received from the Manpower Services Commission proposals on the training and retraining needs of adults, both in employment and unemployed, following the publication in April of the commission's discussion paper "Towards an Adult Training Strategy". The commission's proposals, which will apply to Scotland as much as to other parts of Great Britain, will obviously merit the most careful study.
    Mr. Martin: Is the Minister aware that many employers involved in the North sea oil sector cannot find coded welders capable of working to high standards and who can undergo the Lloyd's safety test? Would not many of the unemployed welders with a reasonable amount of training be capable of reaching the required standards? Will the Minister consider introducing a scheme to help overcome the shortage of skilled workmen?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are spending a great deal on various training schemes in Scotland. However, I shall examine his proposals in detail.
    Mr. Malone: Does my hon. Friend agree that some provision is being made by the private sector to meet the need referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)? Does he welcome the intitiative by Shell Expro of Aberdeen and Grampian regional council to provide 50 training places over a four-year period for technicians in the North sea sector?
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right to emphasise that training must be a partnership between the public and private sectors.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the industrial training education centre at Bellshill industrial estate, which was opened recently with a great flourish by the Strathclyde regional council, could fall flat on its face because of a lack of funds? Will he make inquiries to determine what assistance he can give to that scheme?
    Mr. Steweart: I shall inquire into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have opened one ITEC and have a great regard for what they can achieve.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the major problem in training is that many companies have had to cut back on their orders because of the Government's economic policies? Is the aware that those companies are no longer in a position to train new apprentices? For example, the Weir Pumps company, which has had such a splendid record in training, can now take on only four or five apprentices rather than the 400 or 500 that it used to take on a few years ago.
    Mr. Stewart: We all recognise that a number of companies have had to cut back because of the recession, but I emphasise that the Government are putting immense resources into training. For example, the modular approach in the action plan for 16 to 18-year-olds will demonstrate how training can be made relevant to the changing needs of the Scottish industrial scene.

    Radioactive Waste
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding dangers from radioactivity arising from discharges in Scottish coastal waters.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Over the last year I have received five representations concerning radioactivity arising from discharges to Scottish coastal waters and from the discharges at Sellafield.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is genuine anxiety among many people on the west coast of Scotland about the possible link between the increased level of radioactivity in the coastal waters off the west coast of Scotland and the apparent increase in the level of leukaemia among young people? That anxiety has been exacerbated today by the finding of seaweed off the coast of Scotland that is one thousand times more radioactive than the normal level. Therefore, why have the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for health and social security questions turned down my reasonable request that there should be a systematic investigation by the Scottish Office into this matter?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the concern, but we should all be careful that we do not say anything to increase peoples' concern needlessly. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a principal medical officer from my Department attending all the meetings of Sir Douglas Black's committee who can and will be able to monitor this work carefully. We carefully monitor all the time what evidence there is of radioactivity off the coast of Scotland, and the evidence is that the maximum amounts are small and well within international safety standards.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his answer to my question yesterday has been warmly welcomed and has allayed any fears about radioactivity in the Solway firth and other waters? Will he advise the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to stop making exaggerated statements that cause alarm in Scotland and ask him to await the results of Sir Douglas Black's inquiry, which will give the answers?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and particularly for what he said about being careful not to raise unnecessary alarm about the matter. I can add to what he said by saying that the total amounts of artificial radiation that have so far been found in the careful monitoring off the coast of Scotland do not amount to more than 3 per cent. of the radiation from natural sources that we experience anyway. Therefore, there is no cause for immediate concern, but the matter is being watched carefully.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman's attitude is far too complacent, and that is proved in the letter that I received on the subject from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. There is a good deal of alarm, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has shown, and, for that reason, the people on the west coast of Scotland have a right to be assured that these levels are not dangerous. The Secretary of State has said that the levels are minimal, but they are now 30 per cent. higher than they were three years ago. Where will this end, as ingestion over a period is just as serious as having radiation all in one go?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, and a line has to be drawn between, on the one hand, being over-alarmist and alarming people unnecessarily, and, on the other, being, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, complacent. I have assured him and the House that we take these matters seriously and are watching the position all the time. However, it does no service to anyone to suggest that there are dangers, as that may cause needless alarm, when all the facts are to the contrary.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that he is not in the best position to lecture anyone about spreading fear and alarm, after his conduct at the time of the proposed boring in the Mullwharcher hills, when he led public demonstrations throughout Ayrshire and frightened half the people in Ayrshire to death?
    Mr. Younger: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come round to my point of view at last, as he will be aware that it was this Government who decided not to proceed with that foolish proposal.
    Mr. Craigen: We should welcome an independent investigation into and report on this issue, but may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the findings by his principal medical officer will be made public, and how soon does he expect to have that information available?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have a high-powered inquiry looking into the major source of these discharges in the Sellafield area, and a Scottish principal medical officer involved in those discussions. That is a good safeguard for the Scottish position, and if there were to be any major findings or findings of importance from the inquiry we would know all about them and be able to take action quickly.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State realise that his answer to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) will be widely interpreted as giving substance to the view that there was some danger in the events that led to the demonstrations in which he participated? As a matter of history, will he set the record straight?
    Mr. Younger: I am not certain of the point being made by the hon. Gentleman. The point that I was making at the time has been met by the change of policy by this Government.

    Rural Development
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will be taking to promote rural development in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): We shall continue to direct Government assistance in appropriate ways towards rural communities in respect of agriculture, economic development and the provision of social services.
    Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister for his reply, but he did not mention the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the role that it can play in rural development in Scotland. Is he aware that the chairman of the board recently said that, because of the increase in applications, new applications might have to be delayed and financial aid to others might well fall short of normal levels? Is the Scottish Office prepared to back success? If so, what immediate plans does it have to mitigate the consequences of the severe pressure placed on the board's financial resources?
    Mr. Ancram: Had the hon. Gentleman been in his present position a little longer he would have realised that the Government put a high value on the work done by the board. It has been well treated by the Government in the past, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that funds granted by the Government have risen each year, from £12·7 million in 1978–79, to £29·8 million in 1983–84. I hope he will welcome the fact that the activity generated by the board has caused the circumstances that he described.
    Mr. Wallace: What are the hon. Gentleman's plans?
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in rural areas one of the great concerns is over public transport? Will he initiate further studies into what can be done to help with this problem and the possibility of making a distinction in rate support grant treatment between concessionary fares, which are often extremely beneficial to many people, and free fares, which use a lot of ratepayers' money to benefit those who have public transport, but not those who have none?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. As he may know, I met COSLA recently to discuss these matters, and in coming to a decision I shall take into account what my hon. Friend and COSLA have said.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister address himself to the question of the Highland and Islands Development Board? Is he aware that although his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said clearly in the House that if there are viable projects money will not be denied to them, that is what is happening now with the board?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the level of support will have to be considered in the light of public expenditure constraints. The provision for 1984–95 will include the final £4·5 million of the £10 million committed to special measures in the Invergordon area following the closure of the aluminium smelter.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend accept that the HIDB has poured millions of pounds of public money into projects that have gone bankrupt, and has then given additional money to similar firms that have become bankrupt for the second time? Now that the Government have decided to give aid to the north east coast of Scotland, through the services of the Scottish Development Agency, will this not be welcome, and is it not time that these areas were given assistance, rather than wasting millions on the Highlands and Islands?
    Mr. Ancram: I have noted what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Kennedy: Surely the Minister should condemn the sentiment expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). Will he take the opportunity to do so, and, further, given his previous reply, take the opportunity to explain how it is that a constituent of mine, who wrote to me this week with an interesting proposal to set up the only double glazing producing factory of its type in Inverness, has been rejected by the board because the money is not available? Is that the Conservative initiative in economics?
    Mr. Ancram: Having given the hon. Gentleman the figures of what the Government have provided, I am surprised that he is not prepared to welcome the assistance that the Government have been giving to the Highlands. I repeat that the level of uptake from HIDP resources is a sign of the activity going on in that area.
    Mr. Forsyth: Are there not plenty of sources for funding venture capital in rural areas, and is it not the case that what is needed are fewer taxes and rates, which are the biggest disincentive to growth? In his discussions on rural transport, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to consider reducing the restrictions and regulations which prevent private individuals from running minibus services, which could provide much-needed services in those rural areas?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I note his comments.
    Mr. O'Neill: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated conversion to supporting the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Will he assure us that he will not completely neglect that board, bearing in mind the fact that it has refused to support the EC's agricultural development plans for its area, as there is a feeling abroad that the Government have turned their back on the region?
    Mr. Ancram: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that we have belatedly recognised the needs of the Highlands. I have already given details of the increasing sums of money that are being made available. The Opposition should hang their heads in shame when they consider their record in government. I suspect the hon. Gentleman was referring to Highland farmers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was pleased to announce on 17 October an enhancement of the rates of the hill livestock compensatory allowance on hill cows and sheep in the Highlands and Islands Development Board area, which will be introduced in parallel with additional assistance for marginal farming areas. The new rates will be warmly welcomed by the farmers concerned as tangible recognition of the disadvantages of farming in the Highlands and Islands.

    Trial Costs (Accused Persons)
    Dame Judith Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now permit payment by the Crown of expenses to accused persons in cases where the verdict is "not guilty" or where there is a formal verdict that there is no case to answer.
    Mr. Younger: No. This matter was considered by the Thomson committee on "Criminal Procedure in Scotland", Cmnd. 6218, which concluded that the award of expenses to persons acquitted in criminal proceedings was neither necessary nor desirable. The committee had in mind the existence in Scotland of an independent prosecution service, the wide availability of non-contributory legal aid, and the assistance often provided by motoring, trade union and other organisations. I remain persuaded by its assessment of the matter.
    Dame Judith Hart: I am fully aware of all that the Thomson committee said 10 years ago. Will the Secretary of State take into account the fact that, according to his own information, last year there were almost 9,000 cases of crimes and offences—about half of each—in which the suspect was found not guilty, or the charge was withdrawn or it was found that there was no case to answer? Is he aware that there was great hardship in many of those cases?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that Thomson's conclusion that most people involved would receive financial support from an organisation or would qualify for legal aid is not true? There is great hardship. Ten years later, will the Secretary of State re-examine the matter?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Lady's point. However, I must observe that any cases of genuine hardship are covered by legal aid. For people who are otherwise affected, there are other sources of aid. The Thomson committee went into the issue extremely carefully and I do not believe that it would be worth while trying to second guess by having a full review of the matter.

    Home Improvement Grants
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the Edinburgh district council to discuss the effect in Edinburgh of the cut in home improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ancram: I met an all-party delegation from Edinburgh district council on 21 November to discuss capital allocations for the next financial year. I shall take account of their representations in considering the council's allocation for 1984–85.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that plans to improve tenements in Edinburgh are being abandoned and that many of the people who live in them, some of whom are elderly and have modest means, have been encouraged to spend money on the assumption that they will receive a 90 per cent. grant? Is he further aware that they are now confronted with bills for surveyors' and architects' fees and that no improvement will be carried out? Is he also aware that cutting the grant from April next year will force local authorities to renege on their undertakings? Is that not utterly unacceptable?
    Mr. Ancram: I must explain yet again what the Government have done. We announced that the end date for the enhancement of the rates of some types of grant would, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget statement last year, be 31 March 1984. We confirmed that the open-ended commitment which allowed councils to go beyond their allocations for such grants this year would not be in practice next year. Neither of those announcements was new. Indeed, they were merely confirmation of old ones. I appreciate that some people are disappointed. That is inevitable when a temporary scheme comes to an end. As to fees, there is always a risk of incurring such bills when making an application, because there is no guarantee that such an application will be approved.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Minister aware of the great and growing despair in the cities of Scotland about the cuts in improvement grant? What future can he now offer housing association? Is their funding to be maintained? If not, much of the improvement that has been made in the past few years will be nullified, as such tenements will be adjacent to other blocks of tenements which are falling down. What possible economic justification can the Secretary of State have for his policy, in view of his complacent statement about the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ancram: I am not sure how that matter arises on a question about discussions with Edinburgh district council. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that announcements about the resources that are to be made available to the Housing Corporation will be made soon. It would not be proper for me to say now what those resources are likely to be.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that the home improvement grant system has been abused in Edinburgh, as the greatest benefits have been reaped by speculators, who are the best financiers and supporters of the Tory party?
    Mr. Ancram: I suspect that that is the nearest that we shall get to Opposition Members admitting how successful the scheme has been. One has only to look round Edinburgh and Glasgow to notice the work that has been done as a result of it. I hope that Opposition Members will welcome that improvement.
    Mr. Craigen: As this issue has considerable implications for the rest of Scotland, may we have an assurance that, because so much repair work that is in the pipeline is affected by the moratorium, the Government will ensure that funds will be made available next year to continue the repairs programme?
    Mr. Ancram: I have already made it clear in the House that all expenditure legally incurred before 20 October this year will be covered by the allocations that are made. We are committed to that. Opposition Members might say that that is not the question, but it affects work that is in the pipeline.

    St. Andrew's Day
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will declare St. Andrew's day a public holiday in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: I have no authority in this matter as public holidays in Scotland are fixed locally by district councils.
    Mr. Canavan: Why is today a public holiday in Barbados, the Philippines, Benin, Vanuatu, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, while it is not in the Thatcher undemocratic satellite of Scotland? Is it significant that the Prime Minister's governor-general of Scotland has the same name as the patron saint of England, especially when, according to some historians, St. George was a purely mythical figure who did not even exist?
    Mr. Younger: I imagine that there are public holidays in the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred because the district councils in those areas fixed them.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's other suggestion, I should much prefer to have a public holiday on 9 October, which happens to be St. Denis's day, from whom I imagine the hon. Gentleman is directly descended, and who is, of course, the patron saint of the French royal family.
    Mr. Canavan: The French revolution.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion for additional and expensive public holidays in Scotland will be greeted with dismay by Scottish industry as it struggles to become competitive so that jobs can be protected and created?
    Mr. Younger: No doubt my hon. Friend is right. Most people who are engaged in Scottish business are much more interested in getting business on its feet than in having extra public holidays.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State agree that, more important to Scotland than any public holiday, would be recognition of the Scottish dimension in the government of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that a sprig of heather and twist of tartan, no matter how bravely worn, are no substitute for an adequate devolution policy? Will he examine Lord Home of Hirsel's suggestion that to vote "No" in the referendum was to allow an improved Conservative model to be introduced? Will he now unveil that unlikely beast?
    Mr. Younger: I think it is generally agreed in Scotland that there is very little interest in the recreation of a Scottish Assembly along the lines suggested by the Labour party when it was in office. However, if the Labour party is still interested in devolution, it could take a major step by appointing the hon. Gentleman to the shadow Cabinet.
    Mr. Wilson: If it is possible for Westminster abbey to fly the saltire above the looted stone of destiny, will the Minister issue an order that all public buildings in Scotland, at both national and local level, should display the St. Andrew's flag on this day of all days?
    Mr. Younger: I understand that it is up to individual bodies to decide which flag to fly. The saltire is flown at the Scottish Office, New St. Andrew's house, on public occasions.

    Salmon Fishing
    Mr. Hugh Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals are being considered regarding salmon fishing in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My right hon. and noble Friend is discussing a number of issues with representatives of

    873
    salmon interests, including local management structure and finance, conservation and exploitation of the stocks and sales control.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Minister, as he is a bit of a fisherman himself, welcome the return of salmon to the Clyde? Will he urge his hon. and noble Friend to recognise that there is an urgent need for consultations with all the interested parties concerned with the Clyde, including the United Clyde Angling Protective Association, which is a responsible and well-regarded body?
    Mr. MacKay: I add my welcome to the return of salmon to the Clyde, and I look forward to casting a fly in that river one day and, perhaps, even catching a salmon.
    The Clyde river purification board is calling a meeting early next month to discuss the problem with various parties including, I believe, the association. My right hon. and noble Friend has asked the Crown Estates Commissioners, who have a role in this matter, for a report on salmon fishing rights in the Clyde as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Onslow: As a salmon fisherman, albeit an English one, may I put it to the Minister that if effective action is to be taken to save our national salmon stocks before it is too late we need close and urgent co-ordination between his Department and those who are responsible in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Can my hon. Friend assure us that we can expect comprehensive Government legislation before it is too late?
    Mr. MacKay: I assure my hon. Friend that we are in close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the south about this issue. Unfortunately, there are many differences between the various bodies interested in salmon protection and conservation. That has made it difficult for us to proceed and devise a legislative structure to preserve the salmon.
    Mr. Mason: Has the Scottish Office been consulted during the lengthy review by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on inland waters and coastal estuaries? In view of the fact that this review established a salmon sales group and recommended a salmon tagging system to curb salmon poaching, what are the reactions of the Scottish Office to that recommendation? If that recommendation is adopted in England and Wales, will Scotland follow suit?
    Mr. MacKay: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), we are in close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the situation in England. We are considering with interest the salmon tagging proposal. One of the main differences between Scotland and England that would make it difficult for us to undertake salmon tagging in the way that is suggested for England is that we do not require salmon anglers to have rod licences. In Scotland it is necessary to look more deeply into the problem than in England to find a way round the omission of rod licences for salmon fishermen.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware that it was in my constituency, at Blantyre weir, that the historic return of the salmon to the Clyde was first noticed? [Interruption] I am encouraged by hon. Members who cry that that is a good line. Is the Minister aware that there is genuine concern throughout the Clyde valley that the return of the salmon may affect the character of the Clyde
    874
    and that what is now a recreation area for thousands of anglers might come to be regarded as a privileged place for the few who can afford to fish for salmon?
    Mr. MacKay: I look forward on my fishing trip to the Clyde to being accompanied by the hon. Gentleman, whose background in my constituency means that he should be quite a good fisherman. He has made a valid point. The trout fishing in the upper Clyde is one of a number of points that must be considered at the meeting and included in the report that the Crown Estates Commissioners will be preparing for my right hon. and noble Friend.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are unlikely to see an improvement in the spring and summer salmon runs unless we tackle the issue of drift netting off the English and Irish coasts? Will my hon. Friend hold discussions on this issue with his hon. and noble Friend and the Dublin Government?
    Mr. MacKay: There is great anxiety about drift netting off the coasts of England and Ireland and the illegal drift netting off the coast of Scotland. There are many who feel that the salmon stocks have moved towards an autumn run and away from a spring and a summer run because of drift netting, but other factors may be involved. We are in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about nylon monofilament drift netting, and we shall maintain those contacts.
    Mr. Johnston: Is it not a matter of equal importance that heavy fishing by the Danes and the Germans off Greenland has cut off the salmon from their source? What contact has the Scottish Office had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about that?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is a problem with the interception of salmon at sea. My Department has had contact with the Ministry and with Greenland. We have an agreement with the Faroese to reduce their take of the north Atlantic salmon passing through their waters. We can proceed only by agreement. If the Faroese take some proportion of the salmon stock that feed off their coast, they must be reasonable or they will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the Crown Estates Commissioners have been somewhat dilatory in this instance? The Minister must push hard if there is to be an urgent inquiry, because the record leaves a great deal to be desired. We want a regime that will afford maximum access consistent with the conservation of stocks, and this should be achieved a great deal more quickly than the Crown Estates Commissioners have acted in the past.
    Mr. MacKay: This is an extraordinarily complex matter, affecting heritable rights that have been exercised for more than a century. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. and noble Friend is interested in developments and that he will urge the Crown Estates Commissioners to present him with a full report as soon as possible.

    Railways
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer, Official Report, c. 86.5, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) what consideration he has now given to the problem of section 20 payments and the rate support grant settlement in relation to the railways in Scotland.
    Mr. Ancram: The issue for local authorities which support railway services is essentially the same as for the Government: one of making the most of available resources. The local authorities which pay section 20 grant—in Scotland, that is only the Strathclyde region—should benefit from the general improvements in efficiency that British Rail has been asked to achieve. The cost allocation procedures are now under discussion between British Rail and the passenger transport executives.
    Mr. Dalyell: Ministers undertook to do something. What have they actually done since the last Scottish Question Time?
    Mr. Ancram: During the previous Scottish Question Time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was considering the matter. That was only about four weeks ago. If there is any particular aspect about which the hon. Gentleman would like to know more he should write to me and I shall give him an answer.
    Mr. Allen Adams: Yesterday I raised the subject of the rate support grant. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the rate support grant for the passenger transport authorities will not be allowed to fall to a level at which redundancies will occur in the Glasgow and western Scotland areas? Will he further give an assurance that there will be no reduction in staff at Gourock, Ayr, Wemyss bay, Fairlie and Saltcoats and that Ardrosson beach station will not close? Will he also give attention to the future of Ardrosson harbour, which I understand from the National Union of Railwaymen is also threatened?
    Mr. Ancram: I understand that the latter part of the question was answered last night by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has responsibility for trade and industry matters. Relevant expenditure to 1984–85 includes about £32 million for section 20 payments, and this is broadly in line with expected demands. This figure is reflected in the overall expenditure guidelines of the Strathclyde regional council, issued on 18 November. Rate support grant is paid in aid of local revenues and is not earmarked for specific purposes. The total rate support grant for 1984–85 and its distribution among authorities are matters that have yet to be settled.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister please give much more urgent attention to the real crisis facing the financing of railway services in Strathclyde? Apart from the cost allocation talks, which we welcome, there is a problem for a hard-pressed region that will have to find over £30 million in the coming financial year for section 20 payments. Will the Government do something to help preserve the line for the general travelling public, who deserve a decent and adequate service? I am not asking for Government intervention for particular interest groups. The Minister should not try to wash his hands of the matter and duck out of his responsibilities. Will he give an undertaking that he will take action?
    Mr. Ancram: This is a matter for the Strathclyde passenger transport executive and the Strathclyde regional council, which have the statutory power and responsibility to co-ordinate public transport in the area.

    Nurses (Discipline)
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the procedures for dealing wth breaches of discipline by nurses in the National Health Service in Scotland.
    Mr. John MacKay: No, Sir. Responsibility for conducting disciplinary procedures rests with employing authorities, operating within the relevant NHS General Whitley council agreement.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware of the blatant victimisation by the Forth valley health board in general, and particularly by senior nursing management at the Falkirk royal infirmary? One of my constituents was reported for allegedly taking drugs and was subsequently prosecuted at the Falkirk sheriff court. My constituent was given an absolute discharge by that court but was subsequently called to attend a disciplinary hearing arranged by the health board and was dismissed. On what basis can the Minister defend that form of double jeopardy upon any member of nursing staff throughout Scotland, and particularly on my constituent at the Falkirk royal infirmary?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman will know, from the time when he had ministerial responsibilities for health in the Scottish Office, that dismissals of the sort to which he referred can be the subject of appeal to my right hon. Friend. As the time for that appeal has not elapsed, I cannot comment further on the issue.
    Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the likely effects on employment as a consequence of reduced coal burn by the South of Scotland Electricity Board in 1984.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: In the year from 1 November 1983 the South of Scotland Electricity Board expects total coal burn, including slurry for Scottish requirements, to rise to about 4·5 million tonnes, compared with 4·25 million tonnes in 1982–83. This excludes the effect of any net exchange of power with England and Wales, which amounted to an extra 850,000 tonnes in 1982–83. Any employment implications for the National Coal Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Boards are a matter for the respective boards to consider.
    Mr. Eadie: The Minister must be aware that during yesterday's debate I presented a scenario which could mean either five pits or 4,800 jobs being at stake, or 3,000 jobs if coal burn is reduced by 1·7 million tonnes. I referred to the serious implications for the coal industry in Scotland and the Scottish economy generally and asked whether the Secretary of State would consider meeting area officials of the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland and some hon. Members who have constituency mining interests. As the Under-Secretary of State did not respond to my intervention in the debate am Ito take it that he is not prepared to discuss the serious implications facing the industry and the economy? Is there a "No Entry" sign in front of the Secretary of State's office at St. Andrew's house?
    Mr. Stewart: The Government's concern is to have a viable mining industry that can produce coal at prices that will enable it to win markets. The Government have supported the coal industry to the extent of over £3,500 million in capital investment and £1,599 million in grants since 1979. Electricity consumers should not be asked to subsidise the mining industry. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I referred to his speech last night. The coal industry is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is always prepared to meet hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies on matters of concern to them.
    Mr. Henderson: While I recognise the value of Scottish coal to the economy, may I ask my hon. Friend to ask the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to explain why he is asking hon. Members with constituents who are anxious about the cost of fuel to increase the price of electricity to help miners who will not help themselves, and at a time when the Government are providing £10 million a week to support the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Eadie: I should be very pleased to answer that supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) may answer my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) outside the Chamber. I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making, which is that electricity consumers should not be asked to subsidise the mining industry.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson)——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after Question Time.
    Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) will get his answer if he chooses to meet some of the miners in my constituency. Surely the Minister cannot shrug off the implications of the wild fluctuations in coal burn in Scotland for employment in areas such as East Lothian, which is my constituency. Will he, just for once, make a clear and simple statement of commitment to the future of the coal industry, the electricity industry and the prospects of introducing combined heat and power in the Lothian region?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy took up the issue of combined heat and power on Monday. I repeat that since 1979 the Government have provided the coal industry with over £3,500 million of capital investment and grants amounting to £1,599 million. Surely that is ample evidence of commitment.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the consequences of reduced coal burn will be a reduction in the amount of acid rain? As the substantial overcapacity of electricity generation in Scotland has been confirmed in a written answer to me, is it not absurd that we should be embarking on a new hydro-electric scheme in the north-west at Loch Maree, for example, and other commitments involving vast capital expenditure?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that the elements of cost and price are crucial for the future of an efficient electricity industry.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister recognise that responsibility for the funding of the SSEB rests with his right hon. Friend? As the National Coal Board is the major supplier of the SSEB, it is essential that the future of the industry is made clear to all concerned. Will he therefore allow my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and other colleagues to meet his right hon. Friend to discuss this matter of vital interest and importance to the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Stewart: I have emphasised to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and I do so again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), that my right hon. Friend is always willing to see Scottish Members of Parliament on matters that are of concern to them. I do not think that I can make that very much clearer.

    Shipbuilding Industry
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend met a delegation of Scottish Church leaders on 14 November and I had meetings in September with representatives of local interests about shipyards on lower Clyde, Govan Shipbuilders and Henry Robb, Leith.
    Mr. Brown: Bearing in mind that Robb's of Leith has now completed the last vessel on its order book, will the Minister use all his influence to bring forward Ministry of Defence orders to help the shipbuilding industry in general and Robbs in particular?
    Mr. Stewart: The Ministry of Defence recognises the present difficulties facing the yard and the industry generally. Henry Robb has been given an opportunity to tender for a number of Ministry of Defence orders, along with other small United Kingdom yards, including Hall Russell. The tenders are currently being assessed. The Ministry hopes to place some orders before the end of the year.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the percentage of electricity to be generated from coal in the next five years by power stations in Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: In 1982–83, 38 per cent. of electricity generated in Scotland came from coal and slurry-fired stations. Within the limits of the uncertainties of forecasting, the South of Scotland Electricity Board expects this figure to rise to 43 per cent. in 1983–84 and to 56 per cent. in 1987–88.
    Mr. Douglas: I accept the Minister's percentages. but is it not a fact that in absolute terms coal burn will decline? Is it not reasonable to assume that the unit costs of production of both the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the National Coal Board in Scotland will rise, to the jeopardy of industry and of miners' jobs? Will the Secretary of State not slide away from his responsibility to ensure a dynamic coal industry in Scotland because, notwithstanding our oil and gas reserves, coal is the most fruitful and secure fuel for the future?
    Mr. Stewart: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), the coal burn for next year will be higher than for this year. The hon. Gentleman made a general point about the coal industry. The figures that I gave a few minutes ago confirm the Government's concern to have a viable mining industry that can produce coal at prices that enable it to win markets.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Sheriff Court House (Glasgow)
    Mr. McTaggartasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects Crown Office staff to be operating in the new sheriff court house in Glasgow.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I understand that the new sheriff court house in Glasgow is scheduled to be completed and ready for occupation by September 1986. A small number of the staff of the procurator fiscal Glasgow will be accommodated in the new sheriff court building.
    Mr. McTaggart: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that when the sheriff court building is open it will be adequate for the purposes for which it was built, given that in addition to the Crown case work with which it will have to deal it will presumably have to deal with civil case work when the new Scottish divorce laws come into operation in the not-too-distant future?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The present accommodation in Glasgow for the considerable volume of work handled is completely inadequate and it is hoped that what is now to be provided in the new sheriff court building will be adequate. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that much of the divorce work that will be done at the new sheriff court building will not require the appearance of the witnesses or the parties in court.
    Mr. Dewar: I appreciate that point and the fact that the Minister is confident that the new building will accommodate both the Crown Office staff and any new impact of divorce jurisdiction going to the sheriff court. Can he say what will be the impact on the civil side of the divorce law changes? When will there be a decision on the Scottish Law Commission report on financial settlements on divorce, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has been copiously reported in the Scottish press recently as suggesting that there will not be an early decision, although the English are already legislating on the subject?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have sought to show that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is at present no proposal before the House to deal with this matter. There is, though, the Scottish Law Commission report and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to spend his time sensibly by reading the Conservative party manifesto, he will find reference to that matter there.

    Salmon
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will discuss with procurators fiscal prosecution policy in respect of offences of salmon poaching.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have discussions with procurators fiscal from time to time about all aspects of prosecution policy. I am satisfied that procurators fiscal take proceedings against salmon poachers in appropriate cases and that, like myself, they view the level of poaching, particularly commercial poaching, with concern.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on the north-east coast of my constituency large quantities of salmon are poached but that no prosecutions take place? One of the reasons—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will clarify the position—is that there are no prosecutions for reset. Once the salmon is landed and is handed over to the person who is purchasing it, he cannot be prosecuted. Will my hon. and learned Friend take further steps to ensure that procurators fiscal are more diligent in their duties in prosecuting offenders?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend is correct. Salmon taken illegally is not stolen and accordingly cannot thereafter be resetted. I recognise that my hon. Friend has had problems in his constituency but he will be encouraged to know that last summer the Department in Scotland which has responsibility for this matter used spotter planes and helicopters in an attempt to crack down harder on the growth in poaching, particularly poaching of a commercial character.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the exaggerated attention being given by the Scottish Office to this offence, especially in relation to fishery cruisers picking up nets, when foreign vessels are fishing illegally all around the British coast? What is his attitude to the rights of bailiffs in the light of a recent case in Lewis where, although a person suffered severe personal injuries, the accused was fined only £50?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On the latter point, I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not for me to comment on particular sentences. But I am surprised that, as an hon. Member concerned about tourism, he does not recognise that the growth of commercial poaching of salmon in Scottish rivers and offshore waters is damaging and that, if it is allowed to continue, will do nothing for the reputation either of his part of Scotland or any other part.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the level of fines imposed on people caught salmon poaching is by and large ludicrously low? Will he take steps to consult his colleagues with a view to having the fines greatly increased?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. There is concern that the level of fines is sometimes not adequate. However, if my hon. Friend were to look to the level of fines imposed for commercial poaching in Scotland he would be satisfied that, in those circumstances, substantial fines are imposed.
    Mr. Canavan: Does not the return of salmon to the upper reaches of the Clyde, which has been largely due to public investment in river purification, strengthen the case for my private Member's Bill calling for the public ownership of all freshwater fishing rights in Scotland? If that were enacted the people would own all the fishing rights and would, therefore, have no need to poach.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to allow his constituents a free

    881
    rein to fish anywhere in Scotland. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, this is properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Speed Checks (Hand-held Radar Devices)
    Mr. Wilsonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what guidance he has given to procurators fiscal on the use of hand-held radar devices used in road traffic speeding cases.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: On the instructions of my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, a circular was issued on 8 May 1980 to procurators fiscal advising them of the checks police officers should carry out when operating this type of equipment. No prosecutions for speeding offences will be initiated if these checks are not satisfactorily carried out.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that about 20 cases of possible interference in the use of these devices have been identified by the BBC "Watchdog" programme? In those circumstances, does he not agree that the possibility of error is so great that the device should be withdrawn from use?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not certain about the 20 cases where there might be error but I know that, in accordance with the guidance given by my noble Friend the Lord Advocate, both before these devices are used and after there must be a check to ensure that they have been operating properly and without interference. If there has been interference prosecutions will not follow.

    Cairnryan (Shipbreaking)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what prosecutions have been completed resulting from the shipbreaking at Cairnryan.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There have been two prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 arising out of the shipbreaking operations at Cairnryan. In one case fines totalling £1,500 were imposed while in the second proceedings are still pending in the sheriff court at Stranraer.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Solicitor-General for Scotland think it disgraceful that two people have been killed in the shipbreaking of the Ark Royal? Is he aware that in 1983 two prohibition notices have been served, one report has gone to the procurator fiscal, and eight warning letters have been issued from the Health and Safety Executive? Does that not show the sorry state of private enterprise operations at Cairnryan? Is it not the case that the Health and Safety Executive does not have enough men properly to police this matter to ensure an adequate oversight of it? What responsibility will his Department take for this sorry state of affairs?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) in whose constituency Cairnryan is situated took this matter up with the Minister of State, Department of Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) four or five months ago. The hearing into one of the deaths to which he referred is still pending before the sheriff's court at Stranraer. For good reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, I can make no further comment on that. With regard to my own responsibilities in this matter, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in every case that has been referred to the procurator fiscal by the Health and Safety Executive arising out of these shipbreaking operations there has been a prosecution.
    Mr. McQuarrie: My hon. and learned Friend said that a fine of £1,560 had been imposed. It was imposed on my constituent, Mr. Miles of Northern Shipbreakers company, which was responsible for the breaking-up of the Ark Royal. Will he accept, however, that that case has not been completed? The Department of Employment is currently looking into the actions of the Health and Safety Executive officers and the restrictions on the Ark Royal prior to the breaking-up.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The operations of the Health and Safety Executive and the inquiries that my hon. Friend has made of the Department of Employment are not within my province. I am concerned only when such cases have been reported to the procurator fiscal. When those reports have been made, a prosecution has always resulted.

National Graphical Association (Dispute)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the picketing outside the premises of the Messenger group of newspapers in Warrington last night and in the early hours of this morning.
I understand from the chief constable of Cheshire that between 9 pm and 11 pm last night the number of pickets increased rapidly from 500 to about 4,000 people. Their purpose was clear. It was not to communicate information. It was not persuasion. It was not even demonstration. It was to prevent, by physical force and weight of numbers, newspapers from being taken out of the premises. Many of the pickets had travelled from far afield; many came prepared for, and used, violence against the police. A number were armed with offensive weapons such as iron bars.
At the height of the operation, the chief constable deployed over 1,200 men, from his own force and those of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, and Lancashire. As a result, the vehicle carrying the newspapers was able to leave the premises at the time planned at 5 o'clock this morning, and did so. The pickets began to disperse from about 6 am.
During the course of the disturbances, police officers were attacked and missiles were thrown at them. Twenty three officers were injured and three have been detained in hospital. I am glad to inform the House that at present none appears to have been seriously injured. Thirteen pickets are recorded as having been injured, one of whom remains in hospital. Again, I understand that his condition is not serious. A total of 86 people were arrested for a range of public order offences and offences of assault and obstruction.
I have conveyed to the chief constable my great appreciation of the police operation, and the way in which his officers and those of the other forces dealt with an immensely difficult situation. It is a great tribute to them that the lawful right to move the newspapers was upheld. I have asked that my concern and sympathy should be passed on to the injured officers, as I did in the case of those who incurred injuries last week.
I understand that the number of pickets has now declined to about 150, but there are threats that large numbers will try tonight to repeat the events of last night and this morning. The chief constable has the responsibility for maintaining the rule of law and devising and executing the appropriate plans for doing so. I have made it crystal clear to him that if there is any assistance he requires from me it will be readily available, and he will have my complete support for the exercise of his very considerable powers to the full extent that is required to deal with the situation.
There is and can be no excuse for violence and the attempt by intimidating weight of numbers to negate the lawful rights of other people. Irrespective of the merits of the industrial dispute, what has happened here amounts to breaches of what has always been the criminal law. The place and pretext for its breach make no difference whatsoever. Violence at the picket line is as indefensible as violence at a football match or anywhere else.
884
Action of the kind we saw last night cannot and will not be tolerated. I hope that the House as a whole will join me in condemning what occurred, and the mass picketing which was its cause, and giving every support to the police in preventing or dealing with a recurrence.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I want to make it absolutely plain that the Opposition categorically condemn all violence, in all circumstances, in whatever place, and for whatever purpose it is used. We endorse the view of the TUC policy and organisation committee that trade unions should be supported in carrying out their lawful functions on behalf of their members. I ask the Home Secretary, for his part, to confirm that any possible breach of the law by pickets cannot justify any counter-breach of the law by anyone else.
In view of allegations that have been made, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what reports he has received about the methods of policing at Warrington, particularly in relation to the communications van of the National Graphical Association which has been parked at the Warrington works for four weeks with police permission, and which the police themselves have used during that period? Are not the deplorable scenes of violence the direct outcome of the folly of the Government in dragging industrial relations into the law courts and allowing—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter. I hope that the House will listen in silence.
Mr. Kaufman: The Government are allowing any wayward employer to use the courts of law as a weapon to win a victory in an industrial dispute. Cannot the Government get it into their head that the key to improving industrial relations lies in conciliation, not confrontation?
What action will the Home Secretary now take, as a member of the Cabinet, to get the parties to this dispute round the table to sort out their differences by the time-honoured process of negotiation and conciliation? How many more lamentable episodes such as this will we have to go through before the Government learn that vital lesson?
Mr. Brittan: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation of violence. He referred to counter-breaches of the law in a rather veiled form. If he has any specific allegations to make, I should be grateful if he would do so specifically and they will be investigated in the proper way. He asked about methods of policing. I shall look into any specific allegation that he wishes to make.
The right hon. Gentleman then referred to what had been said by the TUC. I should be grateful if he and Labour Members would express their full support for what the TUC said in its guidelines in February 1979, when it stated:
"It is lawful for persons acting in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to picket at or near a workplace or any other place … provided they do no more than peacefully obtain or communicate information or peacefully persuade workers to abstain from work".
If anyone believes that 4,000 people are needed to do that, whom does he think he is kidding?
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his forthright statement, which makes it quite clear that what is involved

885
at Warrington is nothing to do with the Employment Act but is to do with the breach of the liberties and rights of the subject as guaranteed by the common law. Will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to associate himself with that condemnation without the qualifications and weasel words that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)?
Mr. Brittan: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. No changes in the statute law on employment have made any difference about what happened last night. Violence caused by mass picketing would have been just as unlawful before those changes as it is today. My right hon. Friend is right to refer to the importance of the force of informed opinion. We in this House have a tremendous responsibility. We do not want a repetition of those scenes, and one of the ways of ensuring that is for all of us to condemn violence.
Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman should answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to catch my eye, he will be able to answer at the end.
Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale): I would give way to the Leader of the Opposition if he chose to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Home Secretary aware of the statement at lunchtime by the national secretary of the NGA that tonight's picketing will be an even larger force? Does not that give the lie to the idea that this is some kind of spontaneous outburst? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that political parties in this House should not just repudiate violence in general terms but should specifically repudiate those who in this House give aid and comfort to it?
Mr. Brittan: I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is difficult to square any kind of alleged spontaneity with the document I have in my hand, which invites people to join the picket line in return for £25 to cover their lost time.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, quite apart from violence or the behaviour of the pickets, the mere presence of so many of them has in the past been held to be intimidation and that in the past that view has been accepted by better leaders of the Labour party than we now have?
Mr. Brittan: The first point is most certainly so. In the case of Piddington v. Bates, exactly that proposition was upheld by the courts.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be fair in these matters, what evidence other than that from the chief constable of Cheshire did he receive?
Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman challenges my account of what occurred, he must have failed to read any newspapers or to watch any television.
Sir Edward Gardner: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that thousands of pickets, strangers to any industrial disputes and without a word of warning or discouragement from the Leader of the Opposition, are laying siege not just to a printing plant in Warrington but to the barriers of law that are for all of us the ultimate protection against anarchy.
Mr. Brittan: I totally agree. In considering the breadth and extent of the action that has taken place, the House might like to know that on the evidence of the occupations given by some of those who have been arrested we find that some were students, a teacher and a social worker and that they come from places as far afield as London, Scotland, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Salford and Essex. That is not a spontaneous action or action in defence of anyone's livelihood; it is organised anarchy.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not clear that mass picketing on this scale is, by its very nature, designed to intimidate rather than to persuade? Was it not clearly unlawful under the laws of the last Labour Government? If the NGA desires to avoid violence, surely it should call off a repetition of the picketing tonight and should be urged to do so by the official Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly enough, what he said is today echoed in a quotation in The Standard from one of the six people on whose behalf this whole operation is supposed to be conducted. That person is quoted as saying:
"There is no way that I condone violence of any sort. We are here for our jobs, but some of these other people come just to have a punch-up with the policemen. We don't want to see that".
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: In view of the claims that the pickets are not responsible for violence, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why so many policemen have been injured? Have they been hitting each other, or were these self-inflicted wounds? What is happening outside the printing works at Warrington is disgraceful and is a breach of the law. When the Labour party makes allegations of police brutality, should not it be reminded that if these people were not breaking the law and illegally picketing the police would not need to be present?
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that yesterday.
Mr. Montgomery: And I say it again today.
Mr. Brittan: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Might there not be a design fault in the new and controversial legislation which has produced a legal juggernaut that is now out of control? Has not it transformed a relatively trivial and obscure industrial dispute, which could be settled immediately by the reinstatement of six men, into a major confrontation that has stripped a major union of all its property and assets by a form of bureaucratic mugging? While that may be possible in a country such as Poland, here it will only sour and worsen industrial relations.
Mr. Brittan: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view of the legislation, he will not be surprised to hear, but I share the view of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said:
"Those of us who believe the law to be wrong have to change it rather than break it."
Sir William Clark: Is it not disgraceful that when the Leader of the Opposition is encouraged by Government supporters to condemn the violence all that he does is grin broadly? Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is rather peculiar that Opposition Members talk about peaceful picketing when

887
bottles, stones and iron bars are used on the picket line? Is not this complete and utter anarchy that must be put down at once? Would he agree, further, that if there are people in the country who do not like whatever laws we have to operate under the only way to change those laws is through the ballot box?
Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend.
On the question of the Leader of the Opposition speaking on matters of that kind, I do not take the view that all of us have to speak up on every issue and that if we do not speak up we must be construed by our silence to speak in a particular sense. But in the particular circumstances of this dispute, when the matter is not at an end and when violence is threatened, all of us have to search our consciences and ask whether we can make a contribution to preventing violence by speaking against it. That is a matter for each of us, from the top to the bottom.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: While not condoning the violence or the scenes last night, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that any decent industrial relations officer or any fair-minded manager would probably have settled this argument in an hour in an office on a Friday? Is he aware that if it were not for the Government's legislation—and they must take responsibility for this—the dispute would never have got beyond the factory line?
Mr. Brittan: I do not share that view.
Mr. George Gardiner: Despite the fact that a van containing newspapers was eventually able to leave this plant, it would seem from the reports of last night's riot that the police forces were not sufficient to control the mob assembled. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House a double assurance that if any further occurrences of this kind arise the police forces will be adequate to enable our citizens to go about their lawful business?
Mr. Brittan: The extent of the forces required at any given place must be a matter for the chief constable, but I can assure the House, as I have already done, that all assistance that the chief constable on the day and at the place thinks is necessary will be provided, and that, of course, includes full mutual assistance from neighbouring forces to the necessary extent.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Home Secretary argues that the police, out of necessity, had to charge the picket lines long before the delivery van was ready for dispatch at 5 o'clock. Can he say why they had to dismantle the radio equipment in the NGA van and manhandle the NGA officials out of the van five hours before the delivery was due to go out of the yard? Why did the baton charges take place for several hours before the dispatch of that van? Surely this was provocation. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman should agree that the purpose of the police activity was merely to enable the van to get out of the yard, but the police were provoking the incidents for many hours before that? The police have had an official complaint about that van with which I hope they will be able to deal.
888
Is not the truth of the matter that this Tory Government have set out to smash the trade union movement and that they use the Tory judges in order to cripple the trade unions' financial—[Interruption.]
The Speaker: Order. I think that is enough.
Mr. Skinner rose——
The Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to resume his seat.
Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman had heard me aright, he would know that the specific allegations against the police, if any, will be considered in the proper way.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the plans of the Government to smash the trade union movement. I have to say, although this goes beyond last night's events, that I cannot think of any better way of damaging the trade union movement than by condoning what happened last night.
Mr. Tony Favell: Is the Home Secretary able to confirm that it is within the powers of the chief constable to turn back the hordes of lawbreakers now heading for Warrington before they reach their destination?
Mr. Brittan: If he suspects that their attendance at the spot will lead to a breach of the peace, he has full powers to do so.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Can the Home Secretary confirm that the reports he has received from the police have contained references to the destruction of the NGA van, or is he giving us a partial view of the situation as he has received it?
Mr. Brittan: I have given the facts to the House that seem to me to be relevant.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it has to be a cause of considerable sadness that we have a rent-a-mob of 4,000 people being carted round the country paid for by the trade unions and deliberately supported by the Opposition Front Bench? Is not the violence caused because a section of the community feel that at heart the Labour party believes in smashing laws and not supporting them?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend talks of sadness, and there is, indeed, cause for sadness in yesterday's events, but there is also cause for satisfaction, and it is that the rule of law is being maintained and that the overwhelming majority of people want that to continue.
Mr. James Lamond: Since the Home Secretary has told us today that the situation is so far out of hand that he cannot control it unless he has the full support of the Opposition Front Bench—a view that seems to be strongly supported by his Back Benchers—does he realise that he will get the support of people like myself only when he applies conciliation and not confrontation to the situation?
Mr. Brittan: We can manage quite well without the hon. Gentleman. The question is the price that has to be paid. Some people think that the price the police are being asked to pay is too high and we have a responsibility to reduce it.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the real problem in this

889
dispute is caused by the attitude of those who believe that they can pick and choose the laws they obey because of political reasons and that this disrespect for the rule of law is compounded by the irresponsible attitude of those Opposition Members who refuse to grasp the nettle and condemn those who defiantly break the law and picket illegally? Does he not agree, further, that this spineless and craven attitude of giving in to the bully boy and the militant throughout the Labour movement is responsible for Labour Members sitting on the Opposition Benches and not on the Government Benches?
Mr. Brittan: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. My task is to do what I can to assist those responsible for maintaining the rule of law, and that I shall continue to do.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not of interest that the Master of the Rolls is quoted in one newspaper as saying today that the legal system favours the employers at the expense of the unions? Leaving aside how those talks took place between the Master of the Rolls and a senior civil servant in the Department of Employment, is not that remark of great relevance?
Why does not the Cabinet learn from the experience of the Industrial Relations Act? Since that Act showed itself to be a recipe for confrontation, is it not obvious that all anti-trade union laws will lead to this kind of confrontation?
Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman for one moment. It is a complete illusion to think that the law can keep out of industrial relations or has ever done so. The only difference between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends is as to where the line should be drawn.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that because the British public, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, totally condemn acts of thuggery on the picket line, and because they believe passionately in upholding the law, there has never been an occasion when they have so totally opposed industrial action?
Mr. Brittan: I think that that is right.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Home Secretary confirm that it is the Government's duty to produce conditions conducive to public order? Will he reflect that for 16 weeks there was picketing at the dispute in Stockport perfectly peacefully until the courts were resorted to and that that is where the difficulties have come from? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give further thought to the fact that many of my constituents in Stockport do not want copies of the Messenger pushed through their front doors if they are produced in these circumstances? Will he ensure that they do not have them?
Mr. Brittan: I do not think that it is very difficult to advise those who do not want copies of the Messenger what to do with them. I do not believe that that is the central issue in this dispute. However, it is quite ridiculous to suggest that the Government are at fault because problems have arisen as a result of people deliberately flouting a court order.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend no doubt heard on "The World at One"
890
today the lengthy interview with Mr. Joe Wade, the general secretary of the NGA. Did my right hon. and learned Friend find his posture any more convincing than that of the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend invites me to make a comparison which would not necessarily be helpful in the context of this dispute.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Home Secretary, I am one of the last to support or condone violence, but may I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a re-run of what happened in my constituency at a firm called Grunwick where, unfortunately, I witnessed violence by both police and pickets? I ask the Home Secretary to recall that all these years later, when we sought to establish the rights of an individual to join or not to join a trade union, not one trade union member is permitted to work for Grunwick. This is directly contrary to the rights of people to join a union. It is a non-union company. Any employee who joins a union is sacked.
Mr. Brittan: Whether or not that is so, I will not comment. I respect the hon. Gentleman's genuine belief that violence is to be deplored. However, I ask him to agree that generalised condemnations of violence are not sufficient. We have to face the fact that if there is mass picketing on the scale that we have seen in these recent events it is almost bound to lead to violence. It is that which has to be condemned and not just violence in general terms.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall any other issue in this Parliament upon which the Leader of the Opposition has remained so silent?
Mr. Brittan: I follow the utterances of the right: hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) less closely than my hon. and learned Friend does.
Mr. Bob Clay: Will the Home Secretary accept that it was a quite frightening experience to witness personally, on the invitation of one's constituents who previously had been arrested, what happened last night and then to hear the braying hysteria of Government supporters? Is not it time that the Home Secretary commented specifically on the fact that the police broke into a van owned by the NGA that was legally parked and broke its radio telephone links, smashed its PA system and broke its walkie-talkie communications and that they did it before there were any disturbances? Is it not a fact that, as a result of NGA officials not being able to use that communications equipment, it was made far more difficult for them to organise the demonstration?
Whatever else, if, before there has been any disturbance or any violence, rank after rank of police with riot shields and riot helmets proceed to make baton charges on demonstrators who are simply standing there several hours before any attempt to drive the delivery van out of the works, is it not inevitable that violence follows?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that whatever retaliatory violence occurred—violence which has been condemned by the Opposition as much as by Government supporters—it is also the case that I and other hon. Members witnessed the most appalling brutality by some members of the police force, in some cases where

891
it was quite unwarranted and it could be seen that the demonstrators had not provoked it in any way? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman condemn——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to keep their questions short.
Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue complaints against the police, there is a proper avenue for doing so.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was a frightening experience to be there. I have no doubt that he is right in saying that. But what he has to bear in mind is that the purpose of lawful picketing as enunciated by the TUC itself in 1979 does not require 4,000—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary was answering a question. If we cannot have order in the House, how can we expect it anywhere else?
Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman had told me that it was the intention of the union to use that method of communication to reduce the number of pickets to the number required for genuinely lawful picketing, I should have very much more sympathy with what he says.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Since my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the TUC, does he agree that one of the best ways to de-fuse the present situation and end the violence will be for the TUC to stand up for the maintenance of the rule of law and to discipline the NGA? Is not the apparent lack of authority and will of the TUC in this respect deplorable?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has a valid point.
Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that a Tory party member, Sir John Donaldson, failed totally as chairman of the notorious Industrial Relations Court and, as a result of that failure, eventually the Conservative party admitted that that law was a bad law and should have been withdrawn? Is not the same man, now Master of the Rolls, engaged in a similar task?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go too far down this path, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to criticise the Master of the Rolls.
Mr. Flannery: My question will be brief compared with some that have been allowed.
Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary is only selectively and partially answering the questions put to him by Opposition Members, that he has only taken evidence from the chief constable of Cheshire, and that he seemed not to know about the brutal violence of the police last night? Does he expect British trade unions which are under full scale assault from the Conservative party to sit quiet while they are dismantled? Is that what the Conservative party is after? It is the Conservatives who are encouraging mass picketing more than any Opposition Member. We are all appalled at violence, and we are especially appalled at police violence. I have never been violent in my life.
Mr. Brittan: All that I am asking Opposition Members to do is not to condone breaches of what was the criminal law long before any of the legislation to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)
892
objects came into effect. What would be helpful from as many people as possible is the simple endorsement of the TUC guidance on the conduct of picketing, which was endorsed by the last Labour Government.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the vast majority of people listening to their radios this morning were disgusted and frightened by the noises that they heard of the activities of the pickets at Warrington? Does he accept that they will not be reassured by the noise that they have heard from Opposition Members? Will he take time today to disabuse the country of the disgraceful smears that we have heard from some Opposition Members about the conduct of the police? The police did not arrive armed with bottles, sticks and stones and, in one case, a gun.
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right. If I appear to be inhibited to any extent in commenting on the allegations made against the police, the reason, as I am sure that the House will understand, is that I have responsibilities in the investigation of complaints and police discipline. These matters must be considered in the proper way. On the other hand, hon. Members who have made complaints have not hesitated to clothe themselves with the privilege of the House in making such allegations.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. I shall call the hon. Members who have been standing and then I shall call the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), should he wish to speak again.
Mr. Robert Litherland: Bearing in mind the report in The Guardian this morning, does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unjust and unfair for the Master of the Rolls to give a judgment on the NGA when he is also a prime adviser to the Tory Government?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has distorted the facts completely. In any event, they do not arise out of the events last night.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the vast majority of the public expect the courts to deal most severely with those who partake in mob violence, especially when policemen are injured?
Mr. Brittan: The courts most certainly have the full powers necessary to deal with the offences that come before them.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: The Labour party does not condone violence and nor does the trade union movement. Was not the picket last night peaceful until the communications van was touched and was it not only after the communications van was destroyed that violence began? Will the Home Secretary examine that fact? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also not try to escape from the fact that it is the Government's fault, because of their stupid legislation, that we are in this position? Will he use his authority in Cabinet to persuade the Secretary of State for Employment to intervene to bring the dispute speedily to a halt?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to erect almost the weakest excuse that I could imagine. There is no point in condemning violence without recognising the

893
fact that if 4,000 people come together in such a place, having been invited and offered money to come, one is creating violence and there are no excuses afterwards.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: With reference to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), is he aware that many Conservative Members are deeply concerned that offences of violence are not being adequately punished by the courts? Will my right hon. and learned Friend monitor closely the sentences that are passed by the courts against those who are found guilty of having caused the disturbances and consider whether any further action by him is called for?
Mr. Brittan: I shall seek to ensure that the House has as much information as possible about the outcome of any proceedings arising from last night's incident.
Mr. Eric Deakins: How can trade unions, trade unionists and, indeed, the public have any confidence in the operation of industrial relations law in relation to the present dispute and in the impartial administration of justice, bearing in mind the political advice given by a senior member of the judiciary last year to a senior civil servant? Was not that a breach of a fundamental constitutional convention? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman unreservedly condemn that action?
Mr. Brittan: I certainly will not do so. If the hon. Gentleman reads the stolen document to which he refers, he will realise that it does not bear the construction that he has put upon it.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most trade unionists realise that the attitudes of the Labour party in this matter are mischievous, directed against their best interests and positively malevolent, and that is why many more trade unionists voted Conservative than Labour at the general election and why the trend will continue?
Mr. Brittan: It is certainly correct that the majority of trade unionists do not favour violence or mass picketing and are embarrassed and ashamed by what occurred yesterday.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can the Government seriously claim that their employment legislation strikes an equitable balance between the rights of employers and employees when the trade union movement, which represents employees, is apparently banned from bringing other trade union comrades to the picket line to support the rights of the employees, yet the employer in this instance is allowed to hire a private army, wild dogs and apparently the police to defend his so-called rights?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman's description of the four security men employed by the employer shows that he has never left the world of fantasy.
Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cause of the dispute is the result of a minority seeking to impose its will on a majority that has already expressed its view by secret ballot? Does he agree also that, despite his generous construction on the silence of the Leader of the Opposition, the British public are likely to view his silence slightly less favourably?
Mr. Brittan: I still believe in the right to silence, but in this context, if not in the courts, there is also a right to comment.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the Home Secretary aware that his statement about the rule of law is a cover for legalised Fascism? Is he also aware that the terrible duty created by the Government is such that pickets will continue to fight for their rights for a job and a decent standard of living, and that the Labour party will be with them four square?
Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I or any other hon. Member need take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about Fascism.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is it not obvious that if the NGA were ever a responsible trade union it is now nothing but a conspiracy against the public interest? Is not it a great shame that Mr. Shah's resolve to stand up against last nights violence and odious behaviour was not matched by a similar resolution by the Newspaper Proprietors Association?
Mr. Brittan: No doubt he NPA will have heard that comment.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Home Secretary reconsider the carte blanche authority given to the chief constable in view of the evidence of the bussing in of 1,400 policemen? Did not the Home Secretary make an unprecedented statement by saying to the chief constable that, whether he was right or wrong, he would get the support of the Home Secretary?
Mr. Brittan: That is not what I actually said. I said that, if the chief constable uses his lawful powers to the full, he will have my complete support.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the British people, whichever party they support and whether or not they are trade unionists, will agree that what they saw on television last night and what we are told will happen tonight is the most abhorrent concept of mob rule? They will judge for themselves at the ballot box those who did it, those who supported it and those who will not speak against it.
Mr. Brittan: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is right. I am concerned at the moment not with the ballot box but with avoiding further violence. I hope that the clear expression, by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, by sound or silence, of their abhorrence of violence and their recognition that mass picketing is likely to lead to violence will lead to a de-escalation of what occurred and the saving of injury to life, liberty and property.
Mr. Robert Parry: I mentioned last week the injuries to pickets and the police. Since then, one of my constituents has sustained a badly broken leg and he was kept in a prison cell for an hour before an ambulance was called.
In view of that and of the presence of the thugs. heavies and minders of Mr. Shah, will the Home Secretary call for an urgent inquiry into all aspects of this case? Will he inform the House whether the Government intend to bring in the Army to support the police against the workers, as they did against the Welsh workers in the 1920s?
Mr. Brittan: I have received a letter today from the hon. Gentleman about the matter to which he has referred. I shall be looking into it and replying to him.
With regard to the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I do not believe that a public service is done by making remarks of that kind. Our task jointly should be to try to persuade those who are involved not to risk further danger to life and limb. That is what I have been seeking to do by illustrating and explaining the magnitude of what occurred and seeking to enlist the support of as many people as possible on both sides of the House for the condemnation of violence and the taking of action to prevent it from recurring.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Home Secretary aware that when, in calmer moments, the House and the country have an opportunity to reflect on the matter both will be greatly concerned about his hysterical and provocative approach? The Home Secretary said that he had given the chief constable of Cheshire an indication that he would give him all the aid and assistance that he required. As arrangements exist for forces to transfer officers to provide assistance to another force, what assistance does the Home Secretary have in mind? Surely he agrees that the House should have full knowledge of his thinking on this matter. What assistance does the Home Secretary have in mind to offer the chief constable of Cheshire if he asks for additional help?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is right. In practice, chief constables normally make satisfactory arrangements to obtain support from each other when their own resources are insufficient. It is obviously very much better that that is how it should work. However, section 14 of the Police Act 1964 provides me with a further power to secure assistance from one force to another. If it is necessary for that to be used, and if the chief constable gives me an indication that it is necessary, I will certainly respond.
Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary has asked whether the Opposition endorse the guidelines of the TUC. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that we readily do so. Since the TUC is so wise in the eyes of the Home Secretary, will he join the TUC in condemning the employer in the Messenger newspaper group for his intransigence? Since the Home Secretary says that the TUC is so wise, will he agree with the TUC about the damaging and disruptive effects of the Government's Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982?
896
Since the Home Secretary has twice this afternoon come to the defence of the Master of the Rolls, will he agree with the Master of the Rolls that the legal system is not, in practice, even-handed as between employers and unions and that current functions put the courts almost entirely in the business of restricting or penalising the latter and not of remedying their grievances?
Will the Home Secretary agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the sacked Foreign Secretary, who has said this afternoon that what we are witnessing in this country today is a gradual withholding of consent from the Government, the start of a rejection of civilised values, an increase in crime and lawlessness and one or two violent outbreaks of anger and frustration and that the consequences are a very dangerous threat to national unity and social cohesion? Is not the sacked Foreign Secretary right? Is it because he was right that he has been sacked?
When will the Tory Party return to conciliation?
Mr. Brittan: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, given the difficulties that he faces, should seek to erect a smoke screen which has nothing to with matters that we have been debating. I suppose that it was unreasonable to expect the right hon. Gentleman to rise to the occasion and to seek to prevent violence tonight.
However, in spite of that, I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed the TUC guidelines, though, if he believes that my invitation to him to do so implied that I agree with everything else that the TUC says, he cannot be serious. I remind the House again, because we have a responsibility in this matter, of what the guidelines say, that picketing is permissible only to
"do no more than peacefully obtain or communicate information or peacefully persuade workers to abstain from work."
I make no apology for repeating that there cannot be any possible need to have 4,000 people to do that.
Later—
Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Home Secretary's answer to a question that I posed a few moments ago on his statement, he referred to a document and said that it would not bear the construction that I placed on it. Is there not an obligation on the Home Secretary, in accordance with the convention of the House, to lay the document on the Table?
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Home Secretary quoting from the document, in which case it might have been necessary to do so, but I do not think that he did.

Falkland Islands (Peruvian Peace Proposals)
4.25 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg 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,
"new evidence relating to the timing of the Peruvian peace proposals during the Falklands war, in relation to the timing of the Prime Minister's order to sink the Belgrano."
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite. I refer to yesterday's Wall Street Journal. This is the first opportunity that we have had to consider the statements in that paper. Fifty-seven days after an article was printed in the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal, we saw yesterday the very unusual occurrence of a serious paper prominently reprinting an article.
The article makes three specific statements. It says that the Prime Minister had the Peruvian peace proposals before her on the morning of Sunday 2 May. Yet she tells the House that she did not know of the Peruvian peace proposals until late that evening—three hours after the Belgrano had been sunk.
Secondly, the Wall Street Journal asserts that the Prime Minister had in front of her the reports of an important junta meeting that Saturday night, which came to certain definite conclusions.
Thirdly, the article says that the Prime Minister had in front of her the orders from Admiral Allara for Argentine surface route ships to return to the port of Uschaia. The reference is to orders given at 8.7 pm, and confirmed by the naval command in Buenos Aires at 1.19 am. Those orders were intercepted by the Nimrods with their AD470 Marconi transceiver equipment, decoded at Cheltenham
898
and reported to the Prime Minister. The orders were also intercepted by an American satellite and reported to the British. According to the Americans, they were before the Prime Minister shortly after she awoke at Chequers on the morning of Sunday 2 May.
The matter is urgent, because this is the only opportunity that we have to draw attention to an article published yesterday which, if true, is enormously damaging by implication to the credibility, prestige and reputation of the British Prime Minister.
The matter is important, because few subjects are of more concern to the House than the probity of a Prime Minister. There are two possibilities. The first is that the Wall Street Journal report is not based on fact. If that is true, there should be a call for an apology and, if none is forthcoming, I would expect the Prime Minister to take legal action. Alternatively, the report is basically true, in which case it would appear that the Prime Minister has misled the House knowingly on important matters of substance. It is one or the other. It is in that spirit that I believe that the debate for which I have asked should be granted.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"new evidence relating to the timing of the Peruvian peace proposals during the Falklands war, in relation to the timing of the Prime Minister's order to sink the Belgrano."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the article in the Wall Street Journal, but I have to say that the matter he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Access to the Countryside
4.32 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase access to the countryside.
I make no apology for introducing a Bill that is similar to the one that I introduced in 1982, in effect, about a walkers' charter. When I introduced that Bill I hoped that it would receive Government support. Sadly, the Government chose to block it. On this occasion, I hope that they will think again.
I remind the Government that about one in five adults enjoy walking as a recreation. Nevertheless, over the past 20 years or so the opportunities for walking in this country have steadily been reduced. They have been reduced because many country lanes which 20 or 30 years ago were attractive for walking now have cars and other traffic, making them much less attractive for walkers and much less safe. Much countryside has been lost as a result of the ploughing up of downland and moorland and the draining of marshes. Furthermore, we have seen the spread of urban conurbations into the surrounding areas where people were previously able to walk.
A further problem is that, because of the increasing number of people who go into the countryside, many of the popular beauty spots in the areas where people most enjoy walking are becoming increasingly overcrowded. The process becomes self-defeating. If one goes into the countryside for peace and quiet and to enjoy nature, one finds as many crowds there as in urban areas. It is, therefore, important to search for new areas of access and make it possible for people to go to those new areas which in the past were restricted. The Bill aims to do that.
The Bill also seeks to make sure that footpaths are kept free from obstruction. In discussions that I had today with various people about the Bill, four different people told me about footpaths which farmers had blocked with barbed wire. It is amazing how concerned the Conservative party is about law and order, except when it comes to forcing farmers to keep footpaths open. I hope that the Government will make it clear that all footpaths should be kept free from obstruction.
The Bill seeks to make it possible for temporary diversions round fields where farmers are ploughing or where there are bulls for the time being. It should not be impossible for the Government to design a simple diversion procedure.
Next, the Bill seeks to make it possible for walkers to have the right of access to all moorland, woodland, publicly owned open space, the coast, and other areas where they would not cause damage. People should have the right of access unless the owner of the land applies to
900
a court for an order prohibiting people from going there. That would solve the problem of access which many people had hoped would be solved by the national parks legislation in the 1940s. Sadly, most of the national parks sparingly use their powers to introduce access agreements. My Bill would reverse that and increase access to larger areas of countryside where people would do no harm and could have a great deal of pleasure.
The Bill then deals with the creation of new rights of way, particularly bearing in mind the way in which leisure activities have developed. In many areas the old footpath network served the local communities, but they do not serve leisure activities particularly well. There is a need to signpost and waymark footpaths and to make definitive maps available so that members of the public can see where the rights of way are, particularly when they are obstructed or ploughed up by farmers.
The Bill seeks to produce a code of practice so that walkers, ramblers and other people who go into the countryside to seek peace and quiet are not disturbed by motorbike scrambling or people using off-road vehicles which roam the countryside destroying the peace and quiet, particularly of the green lanes of the downs of southern England. The Bill also seeks to find ways to reclaim some country lanes by reducing car access to them and allowing them to become walking routes.
Finally, the Bill seeks to ensure that all local authorities have footpath officers who can promote footpaths and the efficient use of the countryside. It is unfortunate that many of the metropolitan counties which have just started to take footpaths seriously now find that the Government intend to get rid of those footpath officers and return their duties to the districts which, in many cases, paid little or no attention to them.
The Bill seeks to improve access to the countryside, and I hope that on this occasion the Government will assist its passage and not block it, as in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Jim Callaghan and Mr. Chris Smith.

Access to the Countryside
  ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett accordingly presented a Bill to increase access to the countryside: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Orders of the Day

  Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Bill
  [MR. PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]
  Considered in Committee.

  Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Bill
    Clause 1

      EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE
      4.38 pm
      Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, at end insert 'for the time being'.
      The Chairman: With this we are to take new clause 2 entitled "Duration":
      `This Act shall cease to have effect on the first day of January 1987 unless resolutions to the contrary are approved by both Houses of Parliament during the three months prior to the first day of January 1987.'.
      Mr. Gould: As we discovered on Second Reading last week, clause 1, which is the substance of the Bill, does, principally, two things. First, it puts an end to litigation currently before the Restrictive Practices Court, so that the restrictive trade practices practised by the stock exchange remain in force, and the court is not allowed to consider whether they are in the public interest. As we decided last week, it is exceptional for a Bill to do that. However, it is principally the second proposal to which the amendment and new clause are directed.
      Clause 1 not only puts an end to current litigation and requires the Director General of Fair Trading to expunge from his register all the entries currently made in respect of the stock exchange; it removes from the ambit of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 any practices, current or future, of the stock exchange.
      The amendment and the new clause are designed to ensure that the stock exchange does not entirely escape the legislative grasp of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 which has been supported in principle, and in detail, until recently by successive Governments. The amendment is designed to give the House the opportunity to maintain, and to revive when necessary, an element of control and review.
      It will become clear in our debates this afternoon that without such an amendment the stock exchange would be free from the current court action, free from the provisions in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and bound only by an extremely limited and totally unenforceable voluntary agreement, the terms of which appear to expire at the end of 1986.
      By the end of 1986, when the main substance of the agreement will have been implemented, we must assume that one of two situations will have arisen. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the progenitor of the arrangement, seemed in some doubt when he spoke on Second Reading about which of the two possibilities would occur. He did not seem to know whether the situation that he intended would arise or that which is now widely expected.

      902
      The first of the possibilities is that by 1986 the stock exchange will have carried out to the letter the agreement that it made with the right hon. Gentleman. It will have brought lay members on to the stock exchange council and, perhaps most important, it will have put an end to the minimum commissions system. Nothing else will have changed. The purpose of the agreement was to delay, defer of stagger change so that the single capacity rule and the maximum permitted holdings rule would remain in place.
      If those admittedly restrictive practices remain in force without the amendment, no legislative mechanism will exist to deal with the continuing restrictive practices. The stock exchange could argue that it had done everything required of it under the voluntary agreement with the former Secretary of State. Without danger of contradiction the stock exchange could argue that the matter was at an end and that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act was no longer relevant to its operations.
      Mr Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) right? He is assuming that the changes are minor and have been agreed by the stock exchange as a "pay-off to the Tory paymasters", as someone once said. The changes already taking place before the settlement are enormous. How does the hon. Gentleman answer the argument that the investing public will receive a four-year betterment much earlier than if we had waited for the court to rule?
      Mr. Gould: It is not for me to speculate about the Government's motives in reaching the agreement. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does not seem to have understood my argument that one of two outcomes are possible by the end of 1986. My view is that the outcome desired by the right hon. Member for Hertsmere is unlikely. The hon. Member for Selly Oak must ask his Government to explain, and resolve, the problem because they have argued from time to time that one of the merits of their provision is that important matters such as the single capacity rule and the maximum permitted holdings rule would remain in place and not be threatened or jeopardised.
      If by a remote chance that were the position by 1986 the stock exchange would be subject to no spur to make further changes. The legislation would no longer apply to the stock exchange and it would have no further obligation to make changes. No mechanism for further control over the stock exchange's operations would exist.
      A second possibility is more likely, although the right hon. Member for Hertsmere was anxious to avoid such an outcome to the agreement. It is that the announcement of the stock exchange agreement, to do away with the minimum commissions system, even over a period, will lead to such a breaking down of the dyke wall that the water will rush through. We see evidence of that every day. It is happening before our very eyes, within weeks of the agreement. Even in the last couple of days pension funds and investment companies have made submissions to the stock exchange calling for the early abolition of the minimum commission rule. They see the inevitability of what will happen. In many cases they welcome it, and rightly, providing that relevant changes are made.
      If by the end 1986, as we expect, the rules, structures and institutions connected with the stock exchange have been swept away so that, as was said in the Second Reading debate, the stock exchange is quite different, we

      903
      shall have to resolve severe problems—for example, conflicting interests in firms which can do both jobs once the single capacity rule has gone. We shall no longer be able to rely on the cosy trust and confidence that has helped the stock exchange to resolve its problems. By then we shall need guidelines and signposts about what is to happen.
      In the Second Reading debate I sensed a growing consensus that it was not good enough to leave the stock exchange to spin off into the wide blue yonder, and a totally unpredictable future where all the old conventions, principles and assumptions no longer apply. Hon. Members on both sides agreed that we need a clear statement from the Government that they intend to grasp the nettle and to introduce a statutory framework which, as I emphasised on Second Reading, need not and should not delve into the detailed self-regulatory matters currently undertaken by the stock exchange, but which at least should provide some guiding principle. We heard nothing from the Government. We heard no suggestion that such thoughts existed in Ministers' minds.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does the hon. Member agree that that might follow if one were setting up a totally supervised system, under a securities and exchange commission, for example? We are trying to erect a framework under which a self-regulatory system operates so we must wait to see how that system works.
      Mr. Gould: The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) may belong to the minority which argues that self-regulation is the total answer to the problems. I believe that there is a growing majority, not least within the stock exchange, that recognises that self-regulation in an unpredictable and new situation is unlikely to be able to bear the restraints put upon it.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The structure proposed in the Bill is modified selfregulation—it is not a statutory structure with an area of self-regulation within it.
      Mr. Gould: That is right. The modified system of self-regulation will deal with a changing position, whose main principles and features are quite unpredictable. The agreement bears the seeds of destruction of the current system, which makes it imperative that the Government give some sign of how they intend to resolve such pressing problems as the conflict of interest that may arise within a single financial institution.
      It is unsatisfactory to leave matters hanging in the air, which is why the amendment and the new clause have been tabled. They will provide an opportunity for the Government and the House to return to the issue when the current voluntary agreement reaches the end of its natural term. We can then decide whether any remaining restrictive practices need to be brought back within the ambit of legislation.
      The amendment will provide a statutory spur to further changes by the stock exchange. The minimal changes agreed with the Government were wrung out of the stock exchange only after some years of preparation for threatened litigation. Without the continued existence of legislation, we shall lose an important element of potential control.
      904
      I shall be interested in the Minister's comments on the amendment and the new clause. On the face of it, there appears to be no reason why he should not accept them. They do not purport to do anything violent to the essential structure of the Bill; they leave the voluntary arrangement intact until the end of its natural term in 1986; they allow an end to be put to litigation; and they remove the current entries from the registers. All that is retained is the possibility that the Director General of Fair Trading could require the stock exchange to register restrictive trade practices. They would give the Government and the House the opportunity to pursue that matter if either felt that the position was not satisfactory.
      I urge the Minister to look kindly on the amendment and the new clause, which leave intact the major principles of the Bill. It would reassure opinion on both sides of the Committee if he could accept them.
      Mr. Budgen: The Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for the careful way in which he presented his arguments.
      I cannot agree to new clause 2 because I am not sure whether it would be helpful for the stock exchange, after an interim period, to go before the Restrictive Practices Court once again. However, I agree that the idea that the deal can exist in some static form for the foreseeable future is clearly not supported by anything currently happening in the City.
      The extent to which changes occur is uncertain and unknowable. It would be arrogant for me, as one who knows little about the workings of the City, to predict what structures may emerge after the interim period. But it is obvious that, with the ending of the system of minimum commissions, the single capacity structure is very much at risk. I do not want to bore the Committee with a repetition of the points that I made on Second Reading, but it is likely that there will be a move towards either dual capacity or multiple capacity.
      The Government's response to that possibility has been inadequate. I accept that it is reasonable for them to say, "It is a fluid position, which we cannot entirely predict, but should it evolve in a certain way, regulations based upon the old club system will be inadequate and we will keep in mind the serious possibility—even probability—of introducing a legislative framework with some element of self-regulation within in it," but to give the impression that they anticipate that single capacity will continue for the foreseeable future and that, therefore, self-regulation can continue—albeit in a modified form—is laying the stock exchange open to real dangers.
      Dual capacity at Lloyd's gave rise to conflicts of interest and to activities that must have discouraged people from risking their money in the Lloyd's market. It would be unwise for the stock exchange and the Government to say, "Let it all ride for a bit, and see what happens," but if there is multiple capacity and the conflicts of interest give rise to frauds and scandals, there will be a great deal of public reaction and the following system of statutory regulation will be far more restrictive than had it been introduced to prevent those frauds and scandals rather than to correct them after they had occurred.
      I hope that the Government will make a clearer statement of their understanding that while a system of self-regulation works well with a small stock exchange of 1,000 people operating as a club—with self-regulation and all the social and business inhibitions that that brings

      905
      with it—they also understand that with multiple capacity and large amounts of outside and foreign money coming in there is a need for some form of statutory framework when the market has settled down. We are not asking for a promise to introduce legislation in six months. A little time must pass before the market has settled down, but when it has settled down let there be a legislative framework sooner rather than later.
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen), whose views and independence of spirit on this legislation—and, indeed, other legislation—are well respected in the House. Many of his points were powerfully made, and accepted by this side of the House.
      On Second Reading I expressed forcefully the views of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties about the inadvisability of the proposed action. The spectacle of the Government intervening in or interfering with the process of legislation—not acting as honest broker, but against the wishes of one party—is bad for the standing of the Government, the Office of Fair Trading and the law.
      5 pm
      It follows that we wish to see the Bill voted down. Nevertheless, the point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is, in our judgment, a reasonable second best. One may take the view of the Secretary of State and others that this is the first step in a process of reform of the stock exchange to create something which the alliance would wish to see, and is committed to—a competitive stock exchange. This step will produce a continuous series of reforms that will move towards self-regulation. In other words, it will produce a tidal wave of change, to use the words of the hon. Member for Dagenham, of which the instrument will be the abolition of minimum commissions, with the inevitable consequence of the removal of single capacity in favour of dual capacity.
      If such a process of change is instituted, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said, in a few years' time we shall not know where we are, or things will be roughly as they are at present. The best interests of the public will have to be reviewed in a few years' time, and the amendment gives us the ability to do that in either of those two cases and is therefore a reasonable second best.
      A particular concern to us, and one that we hope will be the subject of the review, is the role of the Bank of England in the proposed agreement through the Bill. The bank acts in a dual capacity, both as the primary customer for the stock exchange and as its regulatory mechanism, in as much as there is one. That will inevitably produce a messy conflict of interest, which will be further complicated because of the Bank of England's special responsibilities towards the Government and the City.
      The amendment, imperfect because it is an amendment to a Bill that we wish to see voted down, at least gives the possibility of a review of such circumstance in a few years' time so that the public interest may be best served, and judged to be served, by the operation of the measure and these provisions.
      Mr. Anthony Nelson: I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) at least on the matter of Bank of England supervision. Some of us raised this matter during Second Reading, and, for understandable reasons, the Minister did not have the opportunity
      906
      fully to reply to these points. However, I hope that we shall have an answer, in today's debate, dealing with the Government's attitude towards the role of the Bank of England. Many hon. Members, whether they fully support the Bill or feel concern about some of its aspects, feel concern about the presumption of the Bank of England in, its supervisory capacity.
      This is where my agreement with the hon. Member for Yeovil ends, because this is not just a second best amendment but a wrecking amendment. I urge the Committee to support neither the new clause nor the amendment because, essentially, a deal has been struck. A major point of contention has been raised by the Office of Fair Trading and put to the Restrictive Practices Court that has now been conceded by the stock exchange council and the members of the stock exchange. The reforms that have been agreed to and that will be implemented are proper ones while we await a. more radical overall review of the workings of the stock exchange. Many of us look forward to the introduction of a securities Act that will provide the overall statutory framework while allowing a self-regulatory aspect within the framework. Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), have spoken of this and supported it.
      This is a wrecking amendment because a deal was struck, with the quid pro quo that the case would be withdrawn and the stock exchange would be given immunity. The amendment would mean reneging on that deal. Furthermore, were we to try to limit the legislation, that would make the stock exchange—for reasons wholly of self-interest I admit, but we have a proper responsibility to consider this prospect—resistant to the introduction of the reforms that we should seek.
      Mr. Gould: I find it difficult to accept that either the amendment or the new clause are wrecking, as both would permit the agreement reached between the parties that is the basis of the Bill to be carried out in full. There would be no question of reviving the litigation, because that could be revived only after some years of registration and preparation for litigation and so on.
      Mr. Nelson: It would be a wrecking amendment because it would be novel to the extent that, as far I am aware, no exclusions under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act are limited in this way. That novelty does not make it an impossible concept, but as far as possible when the House legislates we should make the laws, keep the laws and intend them to be laws. To try out laws on the country, corporate sectors, or sections of the community is not a desirable objective. It would be far better than having a time-limited legislation, if, after a few years, we as a House believe that in the absence of a securities Act or of necessary reforms by the stock exchange, there is a case for once more bringing this practice under the supervision of the court, we repeal the Act. That is the proper way to proceed. We pass an Act because we believe in our judgment that it is proper at the time and if it is no longer proper and we wish once more to subject the practices to the scrutiny of the court, let us repeal the Act.
      Mr. Budgen: There may be something to be said for taking the industrial relations argument of a step-by-step approach. As long as the Government describe this as step one and, not the first and only step, we may be satisfied.
      Mr. Nelson: If I understand my hon. Friend's intervention, he is now being a devil's advocate because in his speech he seemed to be, broadly speaking, against the amendment. I am not sure where he stands now.
      I do not agree with a step-by-step approach inasmuch as it involves time-limited legislation. My hon. Friend refers to industrial relations, but that is another matter because we have been passing Acts successively over recent years that build on each other. None of that legislation is time-limited, as far as I am aware. This legislation is time-limited and in principle that is a bad thing. It reneges on the deal that most people within the market, and most who take the interests of investors seriously to heart, believe is in the interests of all concerned.
      The legislation would restrain the stock exchange from making the necessary reforms or implementing them to the full, and there is a danger that, were we to try to limit the legislation in the suggested way, it would cast a shadow upon, or mean further uncertainty about, the introduction of the securities Act following Professor Gower's report. The Committee would be advised to pass this legislation, and not to time-limit it, but to give serious objective consideration to Professor Gower's report and at that time to try to make sure that we get the structure, the framework and the statutory scrutiny of the stock exchange correct, rather than hang a sword of Damocles over the stock exchange. That is not necessary, given the good will shown and the progress that its members and chairman have made to introduce the necessary changes.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: I shall echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in exhorting the Committee not to pass the amendment. However, it would be right to get on record the fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), representing the Opposition, put his points in a reasonable and restrained way. At first sight, my hon. Friend's description of the amendment as wrecking might seem too harsh. The hon. Member for Dagenham expressed mild anxiety and resentment about that adjective.
      However, when one considers the amendment deeply, it is right to follow my hon. Friend's description of it, and not only for the reasons that he competently put about the undesirability per se of having legislation that is intrinsically time-limited for no good reason, or legislation that lapses automatically when there is no rational and tangible reason for that lapse to be superseded by something, or for it to slot into a subsequent development either of a legislative or administrative kind or for Governmental decisions.
      It is also right to agree with my hon. Friend because of the way in which the stock exchange will try to respond to the July developments, the agreement in the Bill and all of the subsequent measures and decisions, some of which are extremely difficult and profound. There might be a special political colouration to Opposition amendments and it would be most unfortunate if such amendments interrupted the subtle and delicate process which is of major interest to the whole country. This is not an esoteric matter. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment and new clause 2 for the reasons that have already been given and a few more.
      There is a danger that we shall go over some of the ground that was covered on Second Reading. That is
      908
      perhaps not too harmful as long as we do not do so at too great length. Professor Gower's report is awaited by observers and others who are trying to improve the stock exchange's service to the public, its competitiveness and its openness. Radical reform is the present tendency. The Gower exercise is important. As was said forcibly on Second Reading, we are waiting for major legislation in some form of securities Bill—many of my right hon. and hon. Friends hope that there will be a securities Act in 1985 or 1986. It would provide in legislative form some of the decisions that are to be made by the stock exchange council and the membership in the difficult process of consultation flowing from developments in July and include some of the Gower recommendations and some EC directives. It might also consider how those directives link or conflict with single capacity or dual capacity.
      Textually, intellectually and legislatively, the Bill is extremely limited and modest. It will only apply the Government's exemption of the stock exchange to the processes of the Restrictive Practices Court. It would be ridiculous to tailor-make complications such as time limits, annual reports and the rest. Such grave complications would undermine the central purpose of the Bill and make it much more difficult for the stock exchange to carry out its functions.
      Consultation by the stock exchange of its members and implementation of changes to its rules such as to the minimum commissions and single capacity must now be broached by the stock exchange council with its members. That process will be complicated further by a time-limited amendment.
      It would be wrong to accept the suggestion by Opposition Members that the stock exchange has not been and will continue not to be extremely effective under its old rules and regulations. It would be wrong to suggest that it has not effectively policed, controlled and monitored its activities, and provided an orderly, correctly regulated and properly administered market. To suggest as much is wrong and clearly unfair. I readily declare again my interest as a member of the stock exchange. Run by its able chairman, the stock exchange council will continue that effective control, subject to the opening of the stock exchange, which an increasing number of people will welcome enthusiastically. The more open it becomes to foreigners the better it will be. The council should be allowed to continue its work unimpeded by Opposition amendments that are probably more damaging than irritating.
      Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend approve of the idea that agreement to foreign money coming to the stock exchange should rest on the arbitrary decision of the Bank of England—a bank which, as everyone knows, has several roles in the City?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has just muttered something about that being a different issue. That is not what I was talking about, although that matter is dealt with in the Bill.
      I do not assume that the existing exemption provision in the Bill will remain the status quo. There might be all sorts of changes and a new role might be devised for the Bank of England. There might be important legislation such as I have mentioned in a couple of years' time. My

      909
      hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) might be nervous about the Bank of England's surveillance operation. The demise of the Council for the Securities Industry was referred to last week. Although that might be a source of anxiety to some hon. Members, it is not central to this limited and technical Bill. I disagree with my hon. Friend and do not share his anxiety.
      It would be wrong to be tempted by the amendment. At first sight it appears to be reasonable and it was presented reasonably. However, it would be an extreme complication and cause no end of trouble for the House when considering artificially an annual report that would not add to the substance of the decisions made. Indeed, it would provide a technical and grave practical problem for the stock exchange when facing difficult and important decisions henceforth.
      Mr. John Ryman: I had not intended to speak until I heard the astonishing speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I was utterly appalled by the complacent tone of his speech and by his contempt for many sensible suggestions that have been made in support of the amendment.
      As I understand his argument, he maintained that any sanction which is imposed by legislation to ensure that the stock exchange carries out reforms—which it undertakes to carry out as a result of the monstrous arrangement by which the Executive has interfered with the judiciary's functions—should be regarded as wholly unacceptable as it might restrict the freedom of the stock exchange to act as it wishes in the future.
      The hon. Member for Harrow, East carried his complacency to an incredible degree when he said that there was a case for legislation dealing with securities, the stock exchange, European regulations and so on. It would be wrong to deal with those matters now. Not having heard the tenor of the recommendations of the Gower report—he could not have done—he said that whatever Gower recommends will be good, and therefore we can introduce his recommendations in legislation. I know that the hon. Gentleman is experienced in these matters, but I say with deference to him that he is being not only complacent but unrealistic. In effect, he is saying that it is bad for Parliament to impose any sanctions or restrictions in this legislation and that Parliament should trust the stock exchange council completely, having secured concessions, and leave it to the discretion of the stock exchange council whether to proceed with these reforms. He believes that Parliament, the Director General of Fair Trading, and the Secretary of State should have no power to supervise and monitor those reforms on which work is being done. It is the credit of the stock exchange that it has made good progress on these reforms since the summer of this year.
      I support the amendment because it seems to be very modest. If the stock exchange is sincere in its efforts to reform, it has nothing to fear from the amendments. Of what is the stock exchange frightened? The hon. Member for Harrow, East gave no answer, but only a wealth of platitudes and irrelevancies. He waffled interminably about matters that are outside the Bill's scope. I would gladly give way if he wished to intervene.
      The effect of these proposals is to ensure that the stock exchange proceeds with these reforms within a reasonable period. I do not understand the simulated indignation that
      910
      has been shown or the objections that have been made to these modest proposals. That is my only point, and i do not believe that I can improve upon it by repeating it.
      Mr. Peter Tapsell: I declare an interest as a member of the London stock exchange, although I speak as an individual Member of this House and in no sense as a spokesman for the stock exchange or even for the stockbroking firm of which I am a partner and a shareholder.
      Over the years the press has been overwhelmingly in favour of the abolition of minimum commissions. I have always taken the view, and still do—I do not 'relieve that any other hon. Member expressed this opinion on Second Reading—that it will be against the national interest if minimum commissions are abolished. There are many reasons for this. It would lead to a good deal of skullduggery and would put the compensation fund, which has protected all investors, at risk. It would increase the cost of purchasing securities on the stock exchange for small individual investors. The abolition of minimum commissions would also produce a series of major strategic changes in the organisation of the stock exchange and in the organisation of the City of London as a whole. I believe that these would be damaging in the long term to the British national interest.
      During the discussions that have taken place since 1979, successive Ministers and City editors have not fully thought through the implications of what is being proposed and is so widely supported, as their surprise at recent developments has shown.
      The case before the Restrictive Practices Court was launched by the present deputy leader of the Labour party the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who has been consistently hostile in his public remarks during his period in opposition to the interests of the City as a whole, in marked contrast to the recommendations of the Wilson committee on this sector of the City. Successive Conservative Secretaries of State made a serious error of judgment, after the Conservative party came to power in 1979, in not immediately removing this case from the Restrictive Practices Court, which was always an unsuitable forum in which to discuss the matter.
      Mr. Gould: Why?
      Mr. Tapsell: If it had to be referred anywhere, it should have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, where the pros and cons could have been fully argued. The Restrictive Practices Court has no expert knowledge in these technical matters. If the court had declared minimum commissions and other arrangements in the rule book of the stock exchange to be illegal or in contravention of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, it would have had no constructive alternatives to put in their place, and that would have caused a disordered market.
      We are told that the abolition of minimum commissions will cause a substantial drop in the income of many stockbroking firms. For 25 years I have operated almost entirely in the international stockbroking market where I have not been much protected by our minimum commissions. However, there are many stockbroking firms, including some of the leading and most reputable and those which have been of most value to successive Governments in helping to fund the national debt, which have perhaps the greatest part of their business in sterling securities and especially in gilt-edged securities so that the

      911
      fall in their income overnight might be almost catastrophic to them. Therefore, it is expected that the single capacity rule will come under tremendous strain.
      During the last Parliament there were scandals allegedly arising in Lloyd's of London because of the operation of dual capacity. The House of Commons in its wisdom rightly imposed single capacity on Lloyd's. It would be most extraordinary if this Parliament in its first Session were to move in exactly the opposite direction for the stock exchange. I predict with certainty that the abolition of minimum commissions will lead to the abolition of single capacity, and that the abolition of single capacity will probably lead the stock exchange into abberations, difficulties and dangers such as those that Lloyd's has experienced in recent years.
      Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the nature of single or dual capacity in Lloyd's is different in character, substance and activity and legal implications from dual or single capacity in the stock exchange?
      Mr. Tapsell: I accept that. Nevertheless, I believe that everyone would accept that if a stockbroking firm is also to act as the jobber the client of that firm may be anxious. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that strict rules must be laid down if we are to move from single to dual capacity.
      5.30 pm
      If many stockbroking firms have to make good their lost commission as a result of the abolition of minimum commissions by becoming jobbers, they will require a great deal more capital than they now need for carrying out their present stockbroking single capacity operations. If they are to raise the amount of capital that they are likely to need, they will ultimately find it almost irresistible in many instances to accept the attractive offers that many of them are no doubt receiving from overseas. It is true that there are some major British institutions that would like to take an interest in stockbroking firms, but Britain, because of the relatively small size of its industrial base when compared with those of the United States or Japan, does not have anything like the financial muscle of the great American and Japanese financial institutions, which will be able to pay a price for a share in British stockbroking firms which British institutions will not often wish to match.
      We have been protected from a foreign takeover of the London stock exchange by its rules, which at present prevent a foreign institution or outside shareholder from taking more than 29·9 per cent. of the shares of a stockbroking firm. However, when foreign firms buy into London stockbroking firms to the extent of 29·9 per cent., it is understood that often they buy also a commanding share of their overseas business and an option to secure control of all the shares of the firm if and when the 29·9 per cent. rule is abandoned. I have no doubt that pressure from within the stock exchange to abandon the 29·9 per cent. rule will become irresistible unless there is legislation enacted by this House to stop it. The object is to raise more capital and 29·9 per cent. of a small stockbroking firm will not provide enough capital. Nor will it provide the foreign investor with what he is really looking for, which is total control of the British stockbroking firm.
      912
      This means that the House or the Bank of England will have to impose the 29·9 per cent. limit for ever, which will largely defeat the purpose of the entire operation if capital raising is its object, or the limit will go, in which case many of the top stockbroking firms in Britain will eventually fall under foreign control. It is my judgment that many of them are likely to do so. I have some knowledge of these matters, because I have probably visited no fewer than 30 foreign countries a year on business at any time in the past 20 years. I know that all the major foreign financial institutions in the world are following closely events on the London stock exchange. Many of the major institutions in Tokyo and New York will be interested in getting control of a leading British stockbroking firm if they can.
      Mr. Ashdown: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with some interest. I think that he has made the most powerful case yet for voting in favour of an amendment which provides for a review in a few years' time, on the ground that we are launching into something when we do not have a clue about how it will turn out in the years to come. I hope that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech will lead him to vote in favour of the amendment.
      Mr. Tapsell: I voted in favour of Second Reading and I support the Bill. I have already deplored the fact that these issues were allowed to drag on until July 1983. I think that the chairman of the stock exchange was right to reach the agreement that he did with my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State. I have already implied that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, grasped the nettle which should have been clutched by his Tory predecessors. I am entirely in favour of taking this legislation forward and taking the future of the London stock exchange and the City of London out of the hands of the Restrictive Practices Court.
      The argument has been advanced in the past that the stock exchange in some way has fallen down on its job of protecting British national interests by not competing sufficiently in international markets. As I have devoted the whole of my adult commercial life precisely to doing that, I find the criticism rather curious. In so far as the stock exchange as an institution has not achieved a larger place in the international world, that has little to do with the stock exchange as such. The main reason for that is a number of factors, which include the excessively high rates of taxation which successive Governments have imposed on businesses of every sort in Britain, the fact that exchange control was not abolished until 1979 and the fact that stamp duty makes it more expensive to deal in London than in New York.
      All those disadvantages are the faults of Governments of both complexions. It is no good blaming the stock exchange for the fact that it has always operated in international markets under considerable disadvantages imposed upon it by Governments. In addition to all these burdens, the Government should not further weaken the capacity of the London stock exchange to compete by forcing through the abolition of minimum commissions. If certain commissions are thought to be too high, they can be adjusted downwards. I hope that the Government will give second thoughts to the abolition of minimum

      913
      commissions, because I believe that in the long run it will be very much against the interests of the stock exchange, the City and Britain for them to be abolished.
      Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stpockport, South): I hope, for the sake of his constituents, that the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) exaggerated the number of visits that he makes abroad in the course of the year, in the same way as he clearly exaggerated his fears about the future of the stock exchange. It is clear that he is opposed to the stock exchange being referred to the Restrictive Practices Court and that he is not in favour of the Bill. That must be so because he is not in favour of the agreement which was reached between the stock exchange and the Government, which is the basis of the Bill. It is good to have the authentic voice of the dinosaurs of the stock exchange in the House. The hon. Gentleman has spoken against the major provisions of the agreement reached between the Government and the stock exchange.
      The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed the argument that we have heard over a long period about the threat to the stock exchange if the proposed changes go through and are implemented. It is remarkable to hear a Conservative Member arguing so passionately and strongly against something which in many other circumstances he would claim to support, which is competition. He has condemned the proposed changes in favour of the protective stock exchange and a protected market. It appears that he is not in favour of open competition. I think the House will find that a remarkable state of affairs.
      The amendment is a modest attempt to introduce an improvement, but it does not really do what is necessary. If the House were determined to take the right course it would refuse to accept the Bill and allow the proceedings to continue in the Restrictive Practices Court. I do not support the amendment with any enthusiasm, because it is only a stop-gap. I do not know whether the Labour Opposition intend to press it to a Division, but I think that the major business is to defeat the Bill and to rehearse the arguments against it being passed. The removal of minimum commissions will introduce competition. It is a measure which many people in the City, especially in the institutions, think is long overdue.
      The hon. Member for East Lindsey says that the small investor will be damaged if minimum commissions go, but I do not accept that view. I have heard the argument in the banking world that the smaller account holders will be damaged if the banks are chasing around in real competition with one another as the banks will look only to the interests of companies and big business. When competition for the institutional investor becomes more intense and fierce, as I hope it will—that would be to the benefit of the investor—stockbrokers will look for new business and for new investors and we shall see the development of marketing and advertising and, I hope, an aggressive attempt to get more people to invest their money on the stock exchange. That would reverse the trend of recent times towards the domination of the stock market by the institutional investor. Only competition will bring that about.
      The ordinary investor is now swamped by advertisements from institutions to encourage him to invest in insurance, pensions, unit trusts and various other devices, which are all backed by tax benefits. Perhaps there is a case for examining whether that is a wise way to develop the capital market and whether that is one of the factors
      914
      that have led to the lack of investment in industry. If industrial investments in this country had the same tax benefits as pension funds, perhaps we would see a long-overdue substantial change in the direction of investment.
      The removal of minimum commission will lead to much greater competition. Evidence from the New York stock exchange shows that investors will benefit and that the market will become much more aggressive than hitherto.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I should like the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's expert opinion on the small investor and so forth. Is he not aware that, like many institutions, the stock exchange runs on the Robin Hood principle that the large investor may pay a rather larger commission than he needs to, while the small investor gets the benefit? When minimum commissions end, it is likely that the large investor will get a much reduced commission, but that the small investor will pay a considerably higher commission. How will that help the small investor about whom the SDP is always talking so glibly?
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am not in favour of prices being regulated by the transfer of the pricing of funds from one type of investor to another. It would be much better if those high commissions were lower as a result of competition. There is a need for stockbrokers to seek new markets. Substantial savers in this country do not invest directly on the stock exchange because they are never asked by stockbrokers to do so. I should like to see the position that I see at Grand Central station in New York. When I get off the train there and walk across the forecourt I see the Merrill Lynch stand, where I can talk to the stockbroker who is selling shares. They actually try to sell stocks and shares to the small investor, unlike in this country, where it has all been too secretive, closed and uncompetitive for too long.
      Mr. Budgen rose——
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I must get on, because I know that other hon. Members wish to participate. I think it is hoped that the debate will not extend too late into the night.
      It has been forecast—I see no reason why this should not be the case—that the removal of minimum commissions will give rise to the ending of single capacity and to the introduction of dual capacity. That is not: to be feared and I do not share the view of the hon. Member for
      East Lindsey——
      Mr. Dykes indicated assent.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I see that I have the support on that point of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It is not analogous to the Lloyd's position. It would be much better if the stockbroker were able to hold stock and sell to the investor. I see no reason why that should give rise to the type of malpractice in Lloyd's to which the hon. Member for East Lindsey referred.
      It may be—we tabled amendments to take account of this—that, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said on Second Reading, what we need to ensure that such action does not take place is a statutory base for the Council for the Securities Industry. My hon. Friends and I would like to see that. The investor must be protected against malpractice. The proposal put forward on Second Reading, which had been put forward before by the hon.

      915
      Member for Chichester, should be considered carefully by the Government, because it combines a statutory base with a voluntaryism that would appeal to many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      The Council for the Securities Industry is too much a part of the City itself and is not representative enough of the investing public. It does not have the power to issue subpoenas to bring witnesses before it and to take action against people who are abusing the system. It would restore public confidence, which has been shaken at times, and ensure that the investor is protected if we had a statutory base for the Council for the Securities Industry. I do not wish to see a Federal Exchange Commission in this country, but the proposal of the hon. Member for Chichester warrants attention.
      The hon. Member for East Lindsey also mentioned restriction of entry. The hon. Gentleman wants to protect members of the stock exchange from the introduction to the exchange of investors not only from overseas but from this country. When I see the way in which our City institutions in some instances—not in all, thank goodness—have been outstripped, outmatched and outperformed by some of the major investment houses in other countries, I feel that I would welcome those investors as members of the stock exchange and the stimulus that that would give to competition, to the introduction of new technology and to the adoption of much more aggressive methods than have been used on the stock exchange so far.
      There has been pressure for development in those countries, but it has been stymied by the restrictions on the stock exchange. I do not fear that the stock exchange will be taken over by foreign interests, as the hon. Member for East Lindsey emotively described it. I do not see anything wrong with foreign interests coming on to the stock exchange. After all, no one thinks that names in the City, such as Rothschild and Warburg, came straight from the sound of Bow bells.
      The City has benefited from its international character, over hundreds of years. I shall not go back to Lombard street and to the institutions which have played their part in the international financial affairs of the City, but they have benefited the City enormously—no more so than in the banking sphere with the development over recent years of the Eurobond market. The foreign banks have played an enormous role in developing the market, to the benefit of London as a financial centre and to the benefit of the country.
      I do not fear the thought that foreign institutions will buy into stockbroking firms. I am sure that the major financial institutions of this country will feel the same. If they become comprehensive financial service institutions, that will be to the benefit of this country. That is the way in which these institutions are developing in other countries. The pressure is exactly the same for that type of development here and I do not think that we need fear it.
      If the Government are confident that the agreement they have reached with the stock exchange can survive the test of time and the test of public scrutiny, I see no reason why they should not agree, when the Bill is on the statute book, or even during the passage of the Bill through the House, to refer the stock exchange for scrutiny by the Monopolies
      916
      and Mergers Commission, which is what the chairman of the stock exchange said recently he would not mind taking place.
      It is regrettable that the matter has been decided in private, without great public discussion. That is one of the principal reasons why we oppose the Bill. Many people would be relieved of anxieties and misunderstandings if the stock exchange was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and demonstrated to us and to the public that it was not operating against the interest of the public and investors. I hope that during the debate the Minister will make clear his attitude towards that suggestion, taking into account the fact that the chairman of the stock exchange has said that he himself would not resist such a reference.
      I hope that the Bill will not remain unamended tonight. The moderate amendment proposed by the Opposition is a step in the right direction. It would ameliorate the position. I hope that the Minister will accept it in good faith and demonstrate that he is harbouring no second thoughts or inhibitions about the deal that has been done with the stock exchange.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has evinced a strong dislike of the stock exchange and a considerable dislike of stockbrokers. However, I welcome the contribution that stockbrokers have made to the debate. In asking them how they think that the Bill will affect the stock exchange, as in asking eminent legal experts such as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), one gets different views.
      A reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission might in principle be more relevant than the use of the Restrictive Practices Court legislation. However, to suggest that now, as the hon. Gentleman has done, would be effectively to administer the kiss of death.
      I believe that the amendment is wrong, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley is not in his place to hear my argument. It may be argued that the amendment is a mere amplification of an arrangement, but it goes much further than that. It certainly does not amount to the suggestion of a review. In practice, the amendment would not mean a review at the end of three years of the position of the stock exchange.
      Mr. Ashdown rose——
      Mr. Baker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but time is short.
      The amendment would put the House of Commons in the position of a supervisor of the stock exchange. That would be bad for the House and damaging for the stock exchange. It would substitute the uncertainty of a suspended sentence for the uncertainty of court proceedings. It was agreed on Second Reading that the uncertainty about the court proceedings had caused some damage to the effectiveness of the stock exchange, and I do not doubt but that considerable damage would be caused as the process of law and the activities of lawyers proceeded over a long period of years. Uncertainty would be a major cause of damage to the stock exchange.
      There is a curious disagreement about the effect of the abolition of the minimum commission on single capacity. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was very firm about it. He is convinced that single capacity will go.

      917
      Like some other hon. Members, I see no such certainty about the effect on single capacity. The stock exchange is capable of laying down rules that effectively protect the investor, and that is what we should be aiming at, even in changed circumstances.
      I do not regard the Bill as the last word of the House of Commons on this subject. It is an important step, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South has said. If we were to accept the amendment, the Bill would stand on two steps at once. That would make it damaging and ineffective and would damage the value that has been obtained from the arrangement that has been made.
      Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman talks about breaking an arrangement. By their intervention, the Government have broken the arrangement set up to put the stock exchange before the Office of Fair Trading and the Restrictive Practices Court.
      Mr. Baker: An arrangement has been arrived at and the amendment would breach it. It is true that the Government intervened. What the Government are proposing, and what this Bill is effecting, is not a compromise involving litigation between one party and another. The circumstances are unusual. It is because I believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have been a much more appropriate forum that I believe that this arrangement is worth supporting.
      Sooner or later, we will find ourselves discussing a securities Bill, and we will have to look at principles of self-regulation. When we do, I am sure that we will compare the workings of self-regulation in the stock exchange with its workings in other respects in the City. I am disturbed about how self-regulation will work in investment management.
      Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rightly decided to recognise the National Association of Security Dealers and Investment Managers, but he declined to recognise the Association of Independent Investment Managers on the grounds that that body was small and unrepresentative. I urge him to reconsider those grounds for non-recognition. I urge him to consider the rules that govern self-regulation. What rules does a body lay down, how does it administer its rules and how does it apply them when its members break them? I hope that my hon. Friend will think about that, and I am sure that after the Bill has been enacted he and the House will continue to consider how the stock exchange manages its affairs.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is with trepidation that I speak on this subject. My constituency is contiguous with the City of London, and it is less than a 10-minute jog from my home to the stock exchange, but most people in Hackney are worried that the performance of the stock exchange does not benefit them as much as it might. They fear that the stock exchange does not divert enough of the nation's savings into industry, and that it does not allocate resources efficiently between one company and another. They would want me to support the amendment. One Conservative Member rightly said that the amendment was a wrecking amendment. It would be a good idea to consider the stock exchange again more widely in two years.
      On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that a principal role of the stock
      918
      exchange is to raise finance for commerce and industry. That suggests that, like those Parkinsonian figures of old, he has been promoted above the level of his ability. The stock exchange provides remarkably little finance for industry. Today I spent my lunchtime looking at the figures for commercial and industrial companies in recent years. Indeed, I have studied them for the past 30 years and they have not changed much. Those for recent years will be of interest to the Committee.
      6 pm
      In 1978, shares and debentures provided 3 per cent. of the investment capital needed by industrial and commercial companies. In that year, 77 per cent. of capital came from retained profits., 4 per cent. from capital transfers, 12·5 per cent. from bank lending and 3 per cent. from foreign borrowing. In 1979, shares and debentures produced only 2·5 per cent. of the money needed by industrial and commercial companies. In 1980, the figure was 5 per cent., in 1981, 7 per cent., and in 1982, 4·5 per cent. By no stretch of the imagination does that suggest that the stock exchange as an institution is providing a lot of the capital needed by industrial and commercial companies.
      Mr. Peter Lilley: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that as a proportion of net new capital invested by industrial companies the amount raised on the stock exchange varies between a quarter and a third?
      Mr. Sedgemore: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the financial tables, he will find that his figures are not correct. If he cares to put a note on the board, we can discuss the matter futher, but, having looked at this over a number of years, I am sure that his figures are incorrect. I shall even sit down to allow the hon. Gentleman to give me the source of his figures.
      Mr. Lilley: They were contained in a study produced by the National Institute. I forget who the author was—I think that it was Prais—but I shall pass a note to the hon. Gentleman later.
      Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman must know that the figures are published on an annual basis in the financial statistics. He must say either that the statistics are wrong or that there has been a fundamental misinterpretation of them.
      The residents of Hackney are also concerned because the stock exchange is not a good forum for allocating investment resources between one company and another. To allocate resources efficiently and according to the principles of Adam Smith and liberal economists——
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: And Karl Marx.
      Mr. Sedgemore: And Ricardo and Karl Marx—they were all in it together, as the hon. Gentleman knows—three assumptions would have to be present. The first is that the effect of speculation is to stabilise the market price of shares. If that were not the case, prices and yields would be a false guide to earnings' prospects, and companies would borrow money at the wrong price. It is difficult to argue that speculation stabilises the price of stocks and shares.
      The second assumption is that jobbers are always willing to quote a price, but there have been some periods in the history of the stock exchange—1974 comes to mind—when there was so much uncertainty that jobbers were unwilling to do so.

      919
      The third assumption is that one can forecast with reasonable reliability likely future earnings. There is not much evidence either way. A study by I.M.D. Little called "Higgledy-Piggledy Growth", published in the Oxford Bulletin of Statistics, showed that the growth of profits per share of different companies was largely random and that it was virtually impossible to predict future earnings from past earnings.
      There is an unfortunate lack of evidence that the stock market, in conjunction with the new issues market, allocates resources efficiently.
      For those two reason, I invite the Committee to support the amendment so that in a couple of years we can look more generally at the performance of the stock exchange. We are anxious that the nation's savings should go into industrial and commercial enterprise and that they should be used efficiently. As that is not being done at present, any opportunity to return to the wider subject will be welcomed by the residents of Hackney and those in the rest of Britain.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I intervene briefly as I took part in the debate on Second Reading. It is quite obvious that only lawyers will be free from change, simply because there are so many lawyers who are Members of the House.
      Those of us in the City realise that there will be change and that the Bill makes the best of a bad job. It is not a good Bill, but it is the best that could be done in the circumstances.
      It has been suggested that overseas interests are a good thing, and one hon. Member talked about Rothschilds. One could mention the Rothschilds, the Warburgs and even the Samuels. However, they came here to take root, not to transplant that growth overseas. Britain needs to encourage all the talent that it can. Much talent has come here and will continue to come here. That should be welcomed.
      It is not that the City worries about competition. In the end the Government will have to make a decision as to how they wish the City to be controlled. It is no good saying that the Bank of England can do it by winks and nods and around corners. It will have to be done on the basis of the Government and the House of Commons making up their minds.
      This goes much wider than the stockbrokers and the insurance companies, a line which the Germans are now taking. In the Eagle Star takeover, we are talking not just about Eagle Star but about £3 billion of investment that Eagle Star controls. Therefore, gently over the years the control of the assets of this country may pass quietly into foreign hands. When major bids are made, the Government will have to say what is in the country's best interests. The view that people do not have to sell out unless they want to suggests that individuals should always decide what is best for the country. Therefore, we must be cautious about how much control—be it stockbrokers, insurances or banks—will pass into foreign hands.
      In due course, when we come to the Securities Act and Gower, we shall have to discuss from where the country is controlled and where it is going financially.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: Surely in this sphere more than in any other we are dealing increasingly in international markets. That market operates 24 hours a day in New York, Hong Kong and every other part of the world. To
      920
      talk about the City as though it were a little island that operated irrespective of what happens in the world is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Surely we want British institutions that are international and dominating world markets.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If the hon. Gentleman and his party do not understand the difference between switching between investments in one world centre and another and control of the City of London resting in overseas hands, the SDP has a great deal to learn about the City, just as it has about everything else.
      Where one's funds are controlled is important. It is important for the Government and the City to have a say over who controls them and in whose interests they do so. It is not insular to say that we do not want the City to be controlled by American, Japanese or Saudi Arabian interests. It should be controlled for the good of this country, and the House of Commons and the Government will have to judge when that situation arises.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that this was a mild amendment, mildly presented by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It is a seemingly mild amendment. I do not think that it exposes disagreements across the Floor of the Committee, rather misunderstandings that I shall try to discuss.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham remarked about the purposes of the agreement. The agreement was made not to delay or defer change in the stock exchange and in the City but to expedite change, which is happening now. There has been more change in the past four months in the affairs of the City and the stock exchange than in the previous four years and, in effect, going back much longer than that. The press is literally bursting with news every day of changes that are taking place in the City as a direct result of the decision made by Ministers in July this year.
      The point had been reached where the Restrictive Practices Court action was impeding change and progress in the City. No hon. Member has objected to the need for change and greater competition in the City. It is something of a contradiction to suggest that the purpose of the agreement was to delay or defer change. The stock exchange is not being left to spin off into the wide blue yonder, either, as the hon. Member for Dagenham suggested.
      The monitoring arrangements provide the link between the Government and the stock exchange and give both parties the opportunity to ensure the maintenance of a liquid central market and investor protection during this period of transition.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East recognised the present dynamic position. We are not moving from one fixed position to another in the City and the stock exchange.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West mentioned self-regulation. He gave me the impression that he felt that self-regulation was for smallish institutions and not for larger ones. I believe he is mistaken. Some of the larger stock exchanges in the world such as those in the United States operate a very effective and strong self-regulatory system.
      A number of hon. Members have spoken about self-regulation and the changes that may be necessary to ensure

      921
      investor protection which the Government view as the most important aspect. While I would welcome exchanging ideas about what might happen in this respect in the future, this is not the occasion, not least because of the present state of dynamism and change.
      Only this afternoon I received a copy of Professor Gower's report which I shall read with great interest. I shall try to expedite the release of the report to hon. Members and others outside so that they can give us the benefit of their advice and opinions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked about the future of single capacity. Single capacity will stay until it becomes necessary to replace it. Although that may sound a little Irish, the statement of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in July was that single capacity would stay for the time being but that that could not be a fixed position.
      If the needs of the users of the market and members of the exchange require a different system, the Government should not impose a delay. The duty of the Government, as was said on Second Reading, is to be satisfied that the system of investor protection is adequate and appropriate.
      Mr. Budgen: Do not the Government believe that self-regulation will be appropriate if the securities industry is formed into multipurpose institutions?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Fletcher: Yes. The Government believe that self-regulation can be adapted from the present system and is the best way to protect the public in respect of financial institutions. The argument is: what is the frontier between the public interest for which the Government have a responsibility and the system of self-regulation? There is a point where these must meet. The Government must have some interest in the structure. Even in the United States, where there is an abundance of structures and legislation, the institutions have very strong self-regulatory systems. I hope that we can continue broadly as we are at present.
      In considering Professor Gower's report we must examine what frontier there should be between the self-regulatory system and the Government, in this case the Department of Trade and Industry which fulfils the regulatory functions of the Government in the stock exchange.
      I am glad that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) favours the reforms that are taking place, despite the fact that he finds the Government's action disagreeable. I suggest that there is some contradiction in his arguments today and on Second Reading.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East rightly paid tribute to the effectiveness of the stock exchange in maintaining a central market and investor protection. In view of the current healthy discussion, we should never lose sight of the splendid record of the stock exchange in looking after the interests of investors and users of the exchange.
      I remind my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) that the agreement between the Government and the stock exchange says that single capacity will remain at least for the present. That was the difference I found between Ministers and the Director General of Fair Trading in discussion after the general election.
      As my hon. Friend may remember, one of the conditions of the director general was to abolish single
      922
      capacity, together with other changes he recommended. I do not criticise the director general for his point of view. I wish merely to illustrate to my hon. Friend that Ministers viewed the single capacity system as important during a period of transition. That system will remain, as will the 29·9 per cent. for outside investors and member firms, as long as the members of the stock exchange wish that to be the case. It is still managed by the council, which is responsible to the membership. My hon. Freiend may remember the overwhelming vote in the stock exchange council in favour of the Government's agreement.
      Mr. Tapsell: The crux of the case is whether it is realistic for Ministers to think that they can abolish minimum commissions and retain single capacity.
      Mr. Fletcher: That is not the view Ministers take In making an agreement with the stock exchange Ministers took the view that at least for the present single capacity should remain. We do not take a view on what system of investor protection should operate. We want to be satisfied that it is workable. If single capacity goes, it must be replaced by a system at least as effective as the present system.
      Mr. Tapsell: I understand why the Minister says, as he did on Second Reading, that it is not the Government's responsibility to take these decisions. However, if the Government support a course of action such as the abolition of minimum commissions, with the inevitable consequence of putting the single capacity system under great strain, they cannot wash their hands of the inevitable consequence of a course of action for which they have taken responsibility.
      Mr. Fletcher: I understand what my hon. Friend says. The Government believe that the abolition of these commissions is good and healthy for the competitiveness of the stock exchange, and we wish to see that. I believe it is not beyond the wit of man to have an investor protection system with minimum commissions abolished which is at least as satisfactory as the present single capacity system.
      I travelled in North America to look at the systems there. I know a little about information technology and computers from the time when I used to work for a living. I was impressed by the systems used in the stock exchanges in North America.
      The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) agreed that the spur of competition will expand the numbers of individual investors throughout the country. I formally endorse his view. The hon. Gentleman also suggested a new role for British Rail's redundant stations which I should love to see taken up. Never mind dull stockbrokers: let us have smart young ladies selling stocks and shares at Waterloo and Victoria stations. That will be much more attractive.
      I was asked about the possibility of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is not for me to speculate whether that can happen at some time in the future. However, to suggest this is to miss an important point. We have just released the stock exchange to become more competitive. Fundamental changes are taking place in the City. If we imposed an MMC reference on the stock exchange, that would again delay just the changes that most hon. Members wish to see. Whether it should happen in the future, I do not believe that this is the time for such a reference to be made.

      923
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) also spoke of self-regulation, which is much favoured by the Government. Clearly new circumstances require the adaptation of the present self-regulatory systems, and this is a matter that the monitoring process—the arrangements between my Department, the Bank of England and the stock exchange—has very much in mind.
      I also understand my hon. Friend's disappointment at my decision on the Association of Independent Investment Managers. I assure him that I gave the matter very careful consideration, right up to the last appeal that was made to me just the other day, before having reluctantly to make the decision that I considered to be necessary.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) mentioned the role of the Bank of England. I remind him that the agreement was made between the stock exchange and the Government, and the primary responsibility for monitoring implementation falls to the Government. However, we invited the Bank of England to work with the Department in monitoring the implementation and consequences of the reforms. It is essential for us to be fully informed of developments not only in the stock exchange but in securities activities generally in the City. Given the bank's close involvement with the stock exchange and wider concerns with City institutions, I believe that it is uniquely well placed to assist us.
      Mr. Nelson: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I have to put to my hon. Friend the point that I tried to make on Second Reading. Wither the Council for the Securities Industry? Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have questioned whether the Bank of England has a conflict of interests in this matter. Even if it does not, many of us question whether it is ideally suited to decide the criteria for the selection of people to go on to the stock exchange council and its appeal committee and be involved pro tern in the supervision of these markets. Even if we conceded all those points, what, then, is the rationale for the CSI, whose chairman and much of whose membership are appointed directly by the governor?
      Mr. Fletcher: I understand my hon. Friend's point but, as I said a moment ago, the agreement was between the Government and the stock exchange. The Government could hardly delegate their responsibilities in this regard to a non-statutory body such as the CSI. That is why we have been working with and getting the assistance of the bank in wider matters affecting the City as a whole. But we have had advice from the CSI. There have been meetings between my Department and the CSI. Like almost everyone else, the CSI has not hesitated to comment on the changes taking place. We greatly welcome its advice.
      The basic philosophy underlying the Bill is that it is not appropriate for the stock exchange to be subject to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. If that premise is accepted, although I appreciate that not all hon. Members agree with it, it is totally inconsistent to say that on a specified date the exchange should revert to being subject to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. What is more, if it is inappropriate now, it would be inappropriate in 1987, and that is my fundamental objection to the amendment.
      924
      The result of the amendment would be a damaging period of uncertainty. We have come out of that, and naturally we wish to avoid that. The exchange would be in much the same position as it was in the period before 27 July of this year. The exchange would have to operate in the knowledge that at some time in the last quarter of 1986 the question of the exemption would be reopened and possibly reversed. This would not help it to plan for the future with any great confidence. It is bound to be a damper on change, and I am sure that that is not what hon. Members wish to see.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Before the Minister moves to a conclusion, I am rather anxious that he should deal with the question about the control of the City. Have the Government a view and a policy, or will they simply say that anything goes and that anyone can buy it if anyone will sell it? Are the Government concerned that the City and its interests could be controlled from overseas, and would that please them?
      Mr. Fletcher: Rather than try to look into the crystal ball, I suggest that if my hon. Friend studies the events and the changes which have taken place so far in the City he will discover that a couple of foreign bids and a couple of domestic bids have been made. We take the view that the City and our financial institutions are capable of looking after their own interests.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything.
      Mr. Fletcher: Obviously I have greater confidence in our financial institutions than my hon. Friend has. The only powers available to the Government, as to previous Governments, are those under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to intervene where a monopoly position has been created or where it it believed that the public interest would be affected.
      I do not believe that there is any question of the City being taken over. The future of the City is very much in the hands of those who work and are shareholders in our City institutions. They will be bought out only if they sell out. They are able to choose between foreign investors and British investors if they decide that they want to take part in or form a larger financial conglomerate or some institution of that kind.
      It is simply not realistic to think, as the amendment suggests, that we can switch on and off complex and expensive litigation of this kind like a tap. That is what the amendment would do. It would bring us to a point in 1987 where we found ourselves back very much in the position of the period up to July of this year.
      The exemption of the stock exchange from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act simply puts it in the same position as—no better and no worse than—all the other bodies that have received an exemption. That being so, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Gould: We have had an interesting, though in some senses, a very long debate. It has taken up about 80 per cent. of the time available for the remaining stages of the Bill. I fear that the lengthy contributions to the debate, especially from Government supporters, have made it inevitable that we shall have to come back at 10 o'clock to complete the Bill's remaining stages.
      I was puzzled by the apparently conflicting statements of the Minister. He assured me that the purpose of the

      925
      agreement reached by his right hon. Friend and the stock exchange was to expedite change. Within a few minutes of saying that he was assuring the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) that the purpose of the agreement was to keep in place the single capacity and the maximum permitted holdings rules. This has been a conflict in objective that has never been resolved by the Under-Secretary of State, his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State or the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson).
      Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the response to my amendment if only because it has elicited, as did the Second Reading debate, a wide range of disparate views from Government supporters on the merits or demerits of this legislation. The most encouraging feature was that from almost every quarter, whatever the attitude taken to the Bill or to the agreement, there was support for the idea that some form of legislative framework was required. Almost every hon. Member who spoke in the debate agreed with that, save the Under-Secretary of State. While his opaque remarks sorely tempt me, simply as a measure of my disquiet, to press the amendment to a Division, I am more mindful than Conservative Members of the limited time available to the Committee and its interests.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, at end insert
      'provided always that any such agreements under (a) and (b) above be made public'.
      The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 19, after 'above', insert
      'and shall at the same time publish any such particulars, together with any documents relating to such particulars which he has filed with the Restrictive Practices Court;'.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: The Prime Minister in 1960 moved a private Members' Bill entitled the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Bill. Introducing the Bill, she said:
      "Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1351.]
      I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. The fact that a deal was struck with the stock exchange behind closed doors has caused great offence. If the Minister will accept the amendments, thereby enabling the issue to be aired openly, and ensure that in future such matters are kept in the open and under the public gaze, those who have expressed their reservations about the Government's action will be greatly reassured.
      Mr. Gould: I wish to speak to amendment No. 8. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), as the two amendments have almost the same objective. We are worried that the Bill is the product of a secret agreement. Not even the director general of Fair Trading was privy to the negotiations. The documents have never been published and we do not know what precisely is at stake. We are not able to judge the issues, we do not know how restrictive the practices are, how much they are against the public interest or the strength of the case prepared by the director general. It is important for us not to lose sight of these issues and to have
      926
      some idea of the size of the concession made to the stock exchange in the Bill and by the agreement on which it rests. Not surprisingly, I marginally prefer the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and mysef, if only because it strikes at one important class of documents. Although the statement of case by the stock exchange is widely available and was laid before the Restrictive Practices Court, the director general quite properly considers that the statement of case by the Office of Fair Trading should not be made public while litigation is in progress. As a result, we have not had the opportunity of a full and proper debate on the issues arising from the Bill because one-half of the case has not been available to hon. Members.
      A notable factor was that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) referred on Second Reading to the views of and documents prepared by the director general. Other hon. Members were unable to make such a reference since they had not seen the documents. The true purpose of the amendment is that we wish to see not only publication of the entries in the register but the documents filed before the court.
      The object of the Bill is to expunge any record of the restrictive practices currently operated by the stock exchange. As all hon. Members agree that the practices might remain for the foreseeable future, or alter as a result of unpredictable forces and become even more dangerous, it is important that we have a clear picture of the present position. I hope that, when I move amendment No. 8, support is forthcoming from the Committee in that spirit and in the interests of open Government.
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible in the interests of making progress. The Liberal party will support amendment No. 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) should a Division take place. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) about the necessity of bringing matters into the open. As was said on Second Reading, there is the smell of the smoke-filled room about this agreement. Whatever Conservative Members may think as a result of the smell of the smoke-filled room and the secrecy of this matter, many suspicions remain in the minds of many hon. Members and many people outside. Anxiety has rightly been expressed about the fact that a Government w ho oppose restrictive practices now appear to be trying to preserve them.
      The Government are in favour of market forces but now seem anxious to restrict their effect. The Government rightly complain about law breaking—for example, the disgraceful incident in Warrington last night—but in this instance they seem somewhat reluctant to follow the due processes that they have established. When the beneficiary in each case is a group of people who are regarded widely as friends of the Government and who contributed £350,000 to Conservative party funds, and when the person who made the agreement was not only the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but also the chairman of the Conservative party—I do not make any accusations against the probity of the Conservative party or of any person—it is regrettable but natural that suspicions arise. It is important for the Government to be above such suspicion. I suspect, and I suggest to Conservative Members, that it is doubly important for the Government to be moving to a position analogous to that of Caesar's wife—above suspicion.

      927
      The present Attorney-General said on 15 June 1978:
      "But the public interest also requires that there is no misuse of secrecy to cover up errors or bungling or to avoid criticism."—[Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1258.]
      It is in that spirit that we wish to see details of the agreement brought into the open. We wish to know how many of the 173 stock exchange rules referred to the Office of Fair Trading were abolished by the Department of Trade and Industry's agreement with the stock exchange. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to the fact that Sir Nicholas Goodison is in favour of an open debate. We believe that the great weight of evidence that has accumulated and been placed before the Restrictive Practices Court will be lost.
      We believe that it is important to have the open debate. Only by supporting amendment No. 8 can we ensure that an open debate will take place, establish what happened in those smoke-filled rooms and enable us to have access to and sight of such important evidence.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On amendment No. 8, the documents filed by the director general with the court consist of his answer to the stock exchange's statement of case and his further rejoinder. Proofs of evidence have not yet been exchanged. The documents filed by the director general would be meaningless without being read alongside the stock exchange's statement of case and its reply to the director general's answer. The documents were supplied by the stock exchange on the basis that they would be used for the court proceedings only.
      Section 41 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 provides criminal sanctions against the disclosure of such documents. For Parliament now to change the law to compel disclosure of information supplied on that basis would be the type of retrospective legislation that would affect and interfere with the rights of private individuals and about which hon. Members might justifiably complain.
      Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the statement of case by the stock exchange is widely available and has been read by many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and that some parity is desirable?
      Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the stock exchange. It is not a Government document and we would not wish to legislate to make it compulsory to distribute the document.
      On amendment No. 3, the internal rules of the stock exchange are publicly available, so there is no need to press for that. The Committee knows that as soon as there was a significant agreement between the Government and the stock exchange, the House was informed. I am confident that if there were any other agreement the House would again be informed, subject to the need to preserve commercial confidentiality for a time.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: I listened to the Minister's reply with interest. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, we accept the argument of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that amendment No. 8 pinpoints the documents and representations at the court. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, No. 8, in page 1, line 19, after 'above', insert'
      928
      'and shall at the same time publish any such particulars, together with any documents relating to such particulars which he has filed with the Restrictive Practices Court;'.—[Mr. Gould.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 192.

      Division No. 82]

      [6.40 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Kennedy, Charles

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Lamond, James

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Barron, Kevin

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Beggs, Roy

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Blair, Anthony

      McCartney, Hugh

      Boyes, Roland

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

      McKelvey, William

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bruce, Malcolm

      McWilliam, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Madden, Max

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Campbell, Ian

      Marek, Dr John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Martin, Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Maxton, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Meacher, Michael

      Clay, Robert

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Michie, William

      Cohen, Harry

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Coleman, Donald

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Corbett, Robin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Cowans, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Cunningham, Dr John

      O'Brien, William

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      O'Neill, Martin

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Deakins, Eric

      Park, George

      Dormand, Jack

      Parry, Robert

      Douglas, Dick

      Patchett, Terry

      Dubs, Alfred

      Penhaligon, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Eadie, Alex

      Prescott, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Redmond, M.

      Ellis, Raymond

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Fisher, Mark

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

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

      Foulkes, George

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

      Freud, Clement

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      George, Bruce

      Snape, Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gould, Bryan

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Tinn, James

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Wallace, James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      White, James

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Home Robertson, John

      Wilson, Gordon

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Winnick, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Woodall, Alec

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Johnston, Russell

      Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      929

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Harris, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Harvey, Robert

      Amess, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Arnold, Tom

      Hayes, J.

      Ashby, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Heddle, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Henderson, Barry

      Baldry, Anthony

      Hickmet, Richard

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hicks, Robert

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hind, Kenneth

      Benyon, William

      Hirst, Michael

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Best, Keith

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Body, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hooson, Tom

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

      Hordern, Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Bright, Graham

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Brinton, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Jackson, Robert

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Butterfill, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Key, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Knowles, Michael

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

      Lang, Ian

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Cockeram, Eric

      Lester, Jim

      Colvin, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Conway, Derek

      Lilley, Peter

      Coombs, Simon

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Cope, John

      Lord, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Crouch, David

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Dicks, T.

      Maclean, David John.

      Dover, Denshore

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Durant, Tony

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Major, John

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Evennett, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maples, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Marlow, Antony

      Favell, Anthony

      Mather, Carol

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mellor, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Merchant, Piers

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Fox, Marcus

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Franks, Cecil

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Freeman, Roger

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Fry, Peter

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Gale, Roger

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Galley, Roy

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Moore, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Neale, Gerrard

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Needham, Richard

      Greenway, Harry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Newton, Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Normanton, Tom

      Grist, Ian

      Norris, Steven

      Ground, Patrick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Parris, Matthew

      Hannam, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Pawsey, James

      930

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Powley, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Price, Sir David

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Raffan, Keith

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Renton, Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Viggers, Peter

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Walden, George

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Warren, Kenneth

      Silvester, Fred

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Sims, Roger

      Wheeler, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Spence, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      6.52pm
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: It has been said during the proceedings on the Bill that the reference to the Restrictive Practices Court was restricting the stock exchange from making the changes that were necessary to bring it within the requirements of the Director General of Fair Trading. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends dispute that suggestion. There is no reason why the stock exchange should not have amended its rules and moved in the direction that it has now done before the court case came up.
      We are not satisfied with the provisions in the Bill for the supervision of the operations of the stock exchange. We tabled an amendment to introduce a statutory council for the securities industry. In the interests of promoting competition and protecting investors, we believe that there should be a statutory body to supervise the stock exchange. The Bank of England is the biggest customer of the stock exchange, yet it is responsible for supervising the stock exchange. That cannot be right, and it is not in the interests of other investors that the biggest customer of the stock exchange should also be responsible for its supervision.
      We want gilts to be sold by auction, so that the Government can save money on selling their debt much more efficiently and much more cheaply than they have done in the past, and probably will do under the future system.
      Our principal objection to the Bill, and the reason why we shall vote against its Third Reading, is that the Government have done a deal behind closed doors. There are grave suspicions of political skulduggery because of contributions by the Conservative party. As I said on Second Reading, this is a dreadful action by the Government in intervening in a legal process. For those reasons, we shall oppose the Bill's Third Reading this evening.
      Mr. Gould: The debate takes place at the very time when the Government are insisting in a different sphere, for doctrinaire political reasons, that statutory intervention is the only way in which to regulate the affairs of voluntary organisations, and are insisting, too, that litigation is the most appropriate way to resolve complex and difficult issues in industrial relations.

      931
      Today we see the consequences of that rigid reliance on legislation and litigation. That is the painful irony at the very time when the Government, in the securities market, are intent on passing the Bill which covers activities which would be much more appropriately dealt with by statute and which have been dealt with by an Act which has been supported by successive Governments for many years. The Bill removes from the Restrictive Practices Court, where there is a body of expertise, the litigation that should be put to that court.
      I do not wish to repeat my Second Reading speech, but it is hard to reconcile the Government's argument that the Restrictive Practices Court is not competent to deal with the stock exchange with their argument that the ordinary courts are the only proper means of resolving delicate industrial relations issues.
      The Bill leaves a sense of unease, even among Government supporters and on the stock exchange. Do the Government not have a view about the proper regulation of such an important element in financial policy? Do they have no view about single capacity, foreign ownership, and the avoidance of a conflict of interests? We are unhappy with the Bill and with the proceedings today, because no amendment has been accepted by the Government. We believe that it is unsatisfactory to leave the situation unresolved, with the stock exchange in limbo, at the mercy of unpredictable forces for change. It is a dereliction of duty by the Government, and it leaves the suspicion that they have been motivated more by political interests than by a proper concern for one of our country's major institutions.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government have views on all the matters which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has mentioned, but they sense that the House now wishes to reach a conclusion on the Bill. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
      The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 130.

      Division No. 83]

      [6.53 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amess, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Arnold, Tom

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

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Baldry, Anthony

      Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Cockeram, Eric

      Bellingham, Henry

      Colvin, Michael

      Benyon, William

      Conway, Derek

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Coombs, Simon

      Best, Keith

      Cope, John

      Body, Richard

      Couchman, James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Crouch, David

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

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dicks, T.

      Bright, Graham

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brinton, Tim

      Dover, Denshore

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Durant, Tony

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Evennett, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Eyre, Reginald

      Butcher, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Favell, Anthony

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      932

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Fletcher, Alexander

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Major, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Marcus

      Maples, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Marlow, Antony

      Freeman, Roger

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fry, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gale, Roger

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Galley, Roy

      Merchant, Piers

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Greenway, Harry

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gregory, Conal

      Montgomery, Fergus

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

      Moore, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Grist, Ian

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Ground, Patrick

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Needham, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Newton, Tony

      Harris, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harvey, Robert

      Normanton, Tom

      Hawksley, Warren

      Norris, Steven

      Hayes, J.

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Heddle, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Henderson, Barry

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hind, Kenneth

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hirst, Michael

      Powley, John

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Price, Sir David

      Holt, Richard

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Hooson, Tom

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hordern, Peter

      Raffan, Keith

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

      Renton, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hunter, Andrew

      Silvester, Fred

      Jackson, Robert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Spence, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Key, Robert

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Knowles, Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lang, Ian

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Tracey, Richard

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lester, Jim

      Viggers, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Lilley, Peter

      Walden, George

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lord, Michael

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Winterton, Nicholas

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

      Maclean, David John.

      NOES

      Alton, David

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

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Blair, Anthony

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Boyes, Roland

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Bruce, Malcolm

      933

      Caborn, Richard

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Campbell, Ian

      McCartney, Hugh

      Canavan, Dennis

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Cartwright, John

      McKelvey, William

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Clay, Robert

      McWilliam, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Madden, Max

      Cohen, Harry

      Maginnis, Ken

      Coleman, Donald

      Marek, Dr John

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Corbett, Robin

      Martin, Michael

      Cowans, Harry

      Maxton, John

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Meacher, Michael

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

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

      Michie, William

      Deakins, Eric

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dormand, Jack

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Douglas, Dick

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Dubs, Alfred

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Eastham, Ken

      Park, George

      Ellis, Raymond

      Parry, Robert

      Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

      Patchett, Terry

      Fatchett, Derek

      Penhaligon, David

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Fisher, Mark

      Prescott, John

      Flannery, Martin

      Redmond, M.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Foulkes, George

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Freud, Clement

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      George, Bruce

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gould, Bryan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Snape, Peter

      Home Robertson, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Tinn, James

      Johnston, Russell

      Wallace, James

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Kennedy, Charles

      White, James

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Wilson, Gordon

      Lamond, James

      Winnick, David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Leighton, Ronald

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.

      Litherland, Robert

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

  British Railways Bill
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be considered.
  This general powers Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading on 15 March and has been considered by a Select Committee. The Bill covers a wide range of topics, including land acquisition.
  The issue this evening involves part V of the Bill, as a result of which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has tabled the normal blocking motion. Part V deals with the power of Sealink UK Limited to charge for the use of the landing stage at Portsea.
  I shall remind the House of the genesis of the landing stage. It came into being as a result of the building in 1870 of the railway to the Portsmouth dockyard. That meant that access to the normal hard was made impossible for those who nomally used it. It was, therefore, decided to provide an alternative access. The problem is that the landing stage is in a state of increasing disrepair. The whole landing stage will have to be replaced in the next four or four and a half years. The cost of replacement will be considerable. The estimated cost is about £475,000, not the £250,000 suggested in the statement circulated to hon. Members. Currently costs are met by Sealink UK Limited, but that company has been losing money on repairs. It is now necessary to take a serious look at the future of that facility.
  The cost of £475,000 is broadly accepted by the Portsmouth city council engineer, but it may be helpful to the House to know the scale of maintenance costs during the recent past. Between 1970 and 1982, £95·645 was spent. The budget for 1983 is £42,000, made up of a general maintenance charge of £6,000, a charge to repair the concrete ramp of £12,000 and the replacement of the piles to the south of the mooring frame at a cost of £24,000.
  Up to this year, the only moneys received have been on a contractual basis from the ferry company, which has been paying £1,500 per annum. It has done its best to help with the cost and has made ex gratia payments of £24,825. Hon. Members will immediately realise that the gap between the moneys provided and the costs faced by Sealink are continually growing. Although the new agreement with the ferry company provides for a payment of £10,000 a year, that is only starting now.
  All the parties in the area—the Portsmouth city council, the Hampshire county council and those who use the facility—recognise the importance of the landing stage. But, as is so often the case, no one wants to put his hand in his pocket to maintain the facility. There is a belief that if nothing is done the facility will still continue. I regret that that will not be the case. About 3 million journeys by ferry are made each year, and the alternative to the ferry service is a journey by road of more than 30 miles. It is, therefore, important that the facility should be properly maintained and that proper arrangements are made for its future.
  The Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company has agreed to promote a Bill through its subsidiary so that it can take over the facility. I am assured that the Bill will be introduced this Session. When it finally passes through all

  935
  its stages, it will remove responsibility for the landing stage from Sealink—and no one will be more delighted than the board of Sealink when that happy day arrives, but it has not arrived yet, and the board believes that it must make contingency arrangements in case the Bill does not reach the statute book.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Could not British Rail have delayed the progress of its Bill pending progress on the Portsea Harbour Company Bill? We could then have dealt more neatly with the problem.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is an attractive idea, but British Rail does not determine the passage of legislation. We must deal with the position as it is, which is why clause 30 is included in the Bill.
  On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) quite properly expressed his desire for a searching examination of the proposed charges for the use of the landing stage. I am indebted to him for his persistence. However, the successful passage of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill cannot be guaranteed, and the day of replacement of the landing stage comes ever nearer. We must also consider the Government's desire for more private capital to be injected into Sealink. It is for those reasons that we believe that the clause is essential.
  We have taken into account the important points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Portsmouth, North and we are prepared to go as far as possible to meet their objections. Because charging for the facility represents a new departure, and to give the Portsea Harbour Company Bill time to go through Parliament, we have decided not to start charging until 10 July 1985. That should be long enough for the new authority to make its own arrangements.
  The Portsea Harbour Company Bill, which is now published, provides for the new authority to make charges. I have been disturbed by the reluctance, indeed, the resistance, of local authorities to any form of charges. They have adopted an almost ostrich-like attitude towards that essential facility, which is becoming more and more decrepit. It is strange that local authorities and others are quite happy to support the new Bill, which also includes a provision for levying charges, but strongly resist clause 30 of this Bill.
  We want to be sure that every possible opportunity is provided for consultation with those concerned about the new charges. To reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport and for Portsmouth, North, and to be sure that the public who use the facility do not feel cheated by Sealink, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give the House an assurance that any charges levied under clause 30 will be subject to the right of appeal embodied in the Harbours Act 1964.
  I hope that the House will accept the assurance that nothing will happen until July 1985. If in the unhappy event of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill not reaching the statute book charges become necessary, the existing machinery of the Harbours Act 1964 can deal with the problems.
  I hope that all who live in the affected area share the belief that an end must be put to the present unhappy position. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to pass on to its next stage.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I intend to criticise the Bill tonight, as I did on Second Reading on 15 March. It is not becoming for anyone to say, "I told you so", but on occasions even politicians are right and their suspicions are proved to have been well founded.
  On Second Reading I made it clear that I had no intention of attempting to stop British Rail from enjoying what has become almost an annual event—the British Railways Bill. It is wrong to rely on the goodwill of British Rail and its assurances that it would negotiate a satisfactory arrangement with the local authorities. I justified my previous blocking motion by saying:
  "In placing the motion on the Order Paper my motives and intentions were to do exactly as the motion said, and to give time between when the Bill was published and its Second Reading for British Rail to give evidence of its good intentions".—[Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 200.]
  Despite this, at the end of the debate on Second Reading neither I nor any of my hon. Friends divided the House, because we assumed that having drawn attention to our strong reservations about the proposal to charge—there is nothing in the Bill about how much is to be charged—some notice would be taken.
  We also object to the fact that the Bill has been pushed along by British Rail on the assumption that the number of people who are opposed to any part of it is relatively small. The Bill has separate clauses that deal with the separate parts of the country, and small groups of Members will draw attention to particular failings. The assumption that they will not be sufficient in number to stop the Bill passing appears to have given British Rail the attitude that if it simply waited long enough the opposition would go away. It is an affront to Parliament to take this attitude.
  I take personal exception to the fact that we have heard that various discussions have taken place between British Rail and the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company, which have led to certain agreements and understandings. I should have thought that it would have been courteous for British Rail to ensure that such discussions and agreements were made known to any hon. Member who had gone to the trouble of placing a motion on the Order Paper asking that the consideration of the Bill be delayed. British Rail did not consider that that was worthwhile because there was not enough opposition. No attempt was made to communicate any of these assurances.
  It is not good enough simply to rely on the good intention of British Rail in this matter. In particular, it is wrong, and probably constitutionally improper, to ask the House to pass one Bill on the assumption that another Bill which has not begun its passage through the House will become law, and will do so within a limited period, thus absolving British Rail of its responsibility.
  British Rail has inherited the pontoon in Portsmouth harbour. I accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that British Rail is heartily sick of it and would be glad to be rid of it. Many of us would like to be rid of that which we have incurred. Many of us who have taken advantage of privileges given to us in the past would like to renege on paying for them.
  The original pontoon was built because the building of the pier and the establishment of a railway station in Portsmouth harbour extinguished the historic rights of individuals to enjoy and use their own harbour. It

  937
  extinguished the rights of watermen, who depend on access to the harbour for their livelihood and impinged on people's privileges. Because the railway company sought to do justice when it took away the rights of ordinary people, it was given the obligation that as part of the harbour was taken away, a part at which ferry boats and fishing boats had tied up in the past, it would provide and maintain a pontoon at the side of the pier. It was taking away something that had historically belonged to the people of Portsmouth for their pleasure or duties and work, and therefore the company had to provide a facility, which was not subject to a fixed time.
  It may be that over the years the costs of the repair of the pontoon have increased. However, so has the use that the successors to the original railway company, British Rail, have been able to make of the pier, and of the advantage of having a busy railway station and a deep water point at which large ferry boats can come in, and those advantages have not been gradually whittled away. Over the years, the advantage of having the pier and a pontoon has grown, but the cost and obligations have grown.
  There is no doubt that it was intended by Parliament that there should be an obligation upon the successors of the railway company to maintain the pontoon. In practice, if they had done that on a regular, systematic basis, we should not be told today that British Rail is faced with the expenditure of £475,000. That suggests poor housekeeping.
  Mr. John Prescott: Perhaps British Rail has been starved of sufficient money to be able to meet such capital requirements.
  Mr. Griffiths: It is true that British Rail has, like anyone else, to decide its priorities. I am suggesting that if greater priority had been given to maintenance in the past it would not be faced with the capital costs about which we have been talking.
  There is some hesitation about the figure. The notes that British Rail produced for every hon. Member refer to £250,000, but tonight we have been told of a figure of £475,000. It seems that the seriousness with which British Rail has approached the Bill, and the House, is not all that one might have expected from a nationalised industry, which one might have hoped would set an example to others in showing a proper and due respect to Parliament. It is approaching Parliament for the provision of new powers and privileges, which it cannot obtain elsewhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest has spoken of the broad general support for the Portsea Harbour Company Bill. He may be right in saying that, but I understand that there will be opposition to the Bill. That may mean that its passage will be delayed, or perhaps never come about. In that case, the assurance that we have been given tonight—an assurance that I am sure is given by my hon. Friend as an absolute promise from the sponsors of the Bill and British Rail to make no increase in charges until 1985—will not be particularly valuable. All that will happen is that in July 1985 British Rail will be able to say that it has not been able to make charges for two years, and has been deprived of income and will therefore have to make charges all the higher.
  Mr. Peter Snape: If British Rail were to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman is outlining, I should have thought that it would meet with
  938
  widespread approval from the Conservative party. I have heard the argument about the Bill for the first time in this debate, but that seems to me to be fairly sound commercial practice. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of British Rail acting as some sort of charity?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, I should take the strongest exception to the idea that a nationalised industry should be a charity. Nationalised industries should accept their obligations, freely accepted until this time, and should not try to wriggle out of them. It is important for a body such as a nationalised industry to set an example, and I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) feels that nationalised industries are fit to do so. However, that is something for another debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest rightly drew attention to the importance of the ferry between Portsmouth and Gosport. It is an essential link between those two important towns and forms part of a natural association between them. Portsmouth and Gosport have separate local authorities and separate civic identities, but the harbour does not divide them. It has linked them ever since the ferry was rowed.
  My hon. Friend's point helped to demolish the suggestion that we should allow British Rail to make charges. He said that the alternative to the short journey across the harbour is a 30-mile drive. Indeed, it is lengthy and involves busy and difficult roads. It is not a practical alternative for the many thousands of people who cross the harbour each day. Such people are not just business men. Many of them are schoolchildren who are sent from Gosport to independent schools in Portsmouth. Moreover, a large number of people who work in the naval dockyard or Royal Naval establishments in Portsmouth or Gosport cross the harbour to get to work.
  It is important for such people that the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company has kept its fares down. We should remember that we are talking about just a few pence. I noted that my hon. Friend did not put a figure on the fare that British Rail might try to impose. I understand that such figures have been leaked elsewhere, but they have not been leaked to me. Even if the sums involved are small, they will represent a high percentage of the fare and be a real burden on the parents who must pay it twice each day. Such fare increases would also be a burden on working people who have to make the ferry crossing. A fare increase would be a gross imposition on people who have chosen jobs, schools or homes on the assumption that British Rail would not be able to influence fares charged by the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company.
  I should point out to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company has done a grand job keeping its fares down, although it has a virtual monopoly. I pay tribute to it for that.
  I take exception to the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest to local authorities. The local authorities in the area are unanimous in their dislike of the way in which this provision has been inserted into the Bill. The relevant authorities—Gosport, Portsmouth and Hampshire—are all opposed to it. It might be argued that they are being ostrich-like. They do not always agree on everything. It is hard to agree that those authorities are being ostrich-like when they have come together on behalf of the people who live in their

  939
  areas because they do not believe that the Bill is reasonable. Nor is it ostrich-like for local authorities to say that it is not their responsibility to pay.
  British Rail has suggested that Portsmouth city council or Hampshire county council or even a consortium might like to take over the pontoon. Such a suggestion is quite contrary to the thinking of the local authorities. Their view is that a nationalised industry with immutable obligations is trying to shuffle off its responsibility and make someone else pay. It would appear that British Rail does not mind who pays so long as it is not British Rail. It is not reasonable to criticise local authorities that have been consistent and were prepared to discuss the issue with British Rail at every stage. They have always been willing to participate in a satisfactory arrangement.
  If we were told tonight that any charge on people entering the pontoon would be subject to the agreement of Portsmouth city council, I should make a much briefer speech. That council is happy to take on the duty of approving the fare. I do not doubt that the other local authorities would be prepared to do likewise.
  The local authorities' role has been to represent a large number of people in the area who use the ferry daily. It should not be forgotten, however, that many people use it in the summer for recreation. It is unacceptable that we should be expected to rely on the good will of British Rail with the longstop of an appeal to the Secretary of State. We all know how cumbersome such a procedure can be. That is no reflection on my right hon. Friend. It is a cumbersome procedure just to charge a few extra pennies. Effectively, British Rail does not want negotiations with bodies that are able to pin it down—the local authorities.
  Mr. Viggers: I was hoping that it would be possible to obtain three agreements from the sponsors of the Bill. The first was that there should be no charge before 10 July 1985. That matter has been settled and the request granted. I understand that correspondence on the second is under way. It constitutes a contractual agreement whereby British Rail and Sealink UK Ltd. confirmed support for the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company in promoting the Portsea Harbour Company Bill which enables the latter company to take over the pontoon. I understand that that also causes no difficulty.

  The third was that I sought confirmation that Sealink would not make any charge except that necessary to provide funds for its reimbursement for the net cost of repairing, renewing or replacing the pontoon. That would place Sealink's responsibility on all fours, as I understand that it would give Sealink powers similar to those held by the Portsea Harbour Company. It would ensure that Sealink would not benefit by profiteering—I use an emotive word—on the use of the pontoon. I understand that we are being offered not that commitment, but a different one under the Harbours Act 1964. I am worried that the Bill's promoters are not prepared to give us the stricter and tighter requirements for which I hoped.
  Mr. Griffiths: It would not have been difficult to avoid the need for this part of the debate—I do not know what the Opposition wish to debate tonight—if we had been given some fairly simple assurances at an early stage.
  940
  British Rail might have taken the trouble to involve specifically those hon. Members who are known to have a personal and direct interest in this matter.
  In case it should be thought that my lack of confidence in British Rail is and has been because of some personal feeling, I refer to the debate on the British Railways Bill on 15 March. The former hon. Member for Keighley, Mr. Cryer, when speaking to clause 28—it is clause 30 in the new Bill—said:
  "Clause 28 gives absolute powers, which are not unusual, to Secretaries of State. I am not happy for Secretaries of State to be given such powers, although they are accountable to the House. Hon. Members would like to think it is full accountability, but that is debatable. To hand over that power to a subsidiary of the British Railways Board and, moreover, a subsidiary that might be sold is highly unsatisfactory."—[Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 205.]
  I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. The suggestion that there can be an appeal under the Harbours Act is not the type of assurance that we are seeking, and no one will satisfy me about that tonight.
  It is not impossible that British Rail will sooner or later divest itself of its Sealink operations. I do not want to get into an argument about whether that is good, but I make it clear that my criticisms of British Rail would apply even more so if the Sealink subsidiary were sold and we were faced with a suggestion that, as part of the total commercial operation, the charges to use the ferry at Portsmouth were to be increased.
  Mr. Snape: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again. It is a question not of British Rail divesting itself of Sealink, but of British Rail being instructed to do so by the Government in a policy which, I presume, the hon. Gentleman supports.
  Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman prefers me to say "being divested" as opposed to "divesting itself", I accept that correction because I do not wish to be controversial on this occasion, or at least not on that point.
  The proceedings are not as smooth and easy as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest suggests. The way ahead is shrouded in mists. We do not know whether the Portsea Harbour Company Bill will be successful, nor do we know whether or when Sealink will pass into other hands. This is not the time for British Rail to try to divest itself of a particular responsibility. It should be making it clear that it has that responsibility, and that obligation could be included in the negotiations with any successor company. There is no reason why there should ever be a charge to use that pontoon or why an ordinary citizen of Portsmouth, who over the years has given up a facility to the railway companies, should have to pay for the privilege of walking on a pontoon which was placed there simply to recompense that citizen for the loss.
  My objection is to the concept of payment, and not especially about whether British Rail suggested that payment should be made. I want the pontoon to be maintained and repaired, and this should be part of the normal financial expenditure of British Rail. Expenditure of £475,000 is a large sum—but not to British Rail, as it is only a small part of its capital programme. This expenditure will not make or break British Rail in any one year, but it is an item with which British Rail could deal by making simple economies in other areas. This large sum of money might influence the views of a successor company. I am alarmed that a successor faced with that obligation might be deterred, unless he inherits the power

  941
  to make a charge—as was given to British Rail—and he can reimburse himself for his capital expenditure. I believe that this is unacceptable to the people in the area, and it is not reasonable to suggest that they should bear this cost.
  It is clear from what has been said tonight that clause 30 is not necessary if British Rail believes, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest said, that with its active and positive support the Portsea Harbour Company Bill will be enacted. However, British Rail is not as confident as my hon. Friend. It is therefore pressing this matter. In paragraph 4 of British Rail's statement to the House—I shall not read the whole paragraph, as other hon. Members wish to speak—British Rail says:
  "Discussions over many years failed to provide a satisfactory solution".
  That is a reflection more on those whose task was to seek the satisfactory solution—British Rail—than on anyone else. The statement continues:
  "proposals have recently been formulated".
  We are all aware of that, because most hon. Members will have seen the Bill that is promoted by the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company. The statement says that Sealink
  "considers it both prudent and expedient to have the power to make a reasonable charge for its use; clause 33 seeks no more than that."
  I object to the idea that the people of Portsmouth should have to pay to use something which was provided for them as a lesser privilege than that which they relinquished. The statement continues:
  "Should the landing stage be taken into other ownership, the power would lapse but, should Sealink's obligation remain unaltered, it would strenuously submit to your Honourable House that such a power should be made available by means of the enactment of clause 30 of the Bill."
  With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, that is quite different from the scenario which he painted. We all know that many problems can arise between the printing of a Bill and its enactment.
  I suggest in all seriousness that British Rail has not treated the House with the respect that it deserves. It has not treated individual Members with the courtesy that they would expect. British Rail should closely examine the tactics that it has used over the Bill to ascertain whether it can satisfy itself that an attempt to disregard local objections is a satisfactory way in which to proceed. Surely it is necessary to take account of local objections, especially when they concern a matter of vital importance to the local people but which is of only marginal significance to British Rail.
  If it is thought proper for further assurances to be given on the way in which British Rail intends to operate, that may mean that the Bill can proceed through the House without being the subject of a Division. Unless there can be clear assurances given that British Rail will try to meet the reasonable requests of the people of Portsmouth and the surrounding districts, I shall have to reserve my position and consider carefully whether it is possible for me to allow the Bill to proceed unopposed.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the oppportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. On Second Reading I used the opportunity to raise one or two Greater Manchester issues, and I shall return to them. I wish to press the promoters to provide further assurances but I wish especially to press the Minister to provide them when he intervenes.
  942
  Everyone in Greater Manchester welcomed the fact that British Rail was introducing a Bill which sought powers to introduce a rail link to Manchester airport. I understand that there is the possibility of funds being available for a feasibility study, but that there is no guarantee that money will be available to build the short and modest piece of railway track that will provide a link with the airport. I hope that British Rail and the Government can quickly reach the stage at which they can announce that the feasibility study has been carried out, that the money is available and that contracts have been entered into for building the rail link.
  Areas in the north of England generally, and especially airports, have had an unfair deal from the Government and from previous Governments. Manchester airport is almost entirely an example of municipal enterprise. It is a great credit to the old city of Manchester, and now to Manchester and the Greater Manchester council, that such an important international airport has been established in the area. When one considers the amount of Government assistance that has been given to extending the tube line to Heathrow and the money that is now being spent to extend that line even further to provide the extra terminal at Heathrow with a link to the tube one wonders why it is so difficult to find the modest sums that would be necessary to build the rail link.
  The Government have spent a considerable amount of money on a public inquiry into the development of Stansted as a further airport for London. If that sum had been allocated to the rail link, Manchester international airport could have served in almost every respect as the alternative to Stansted. Without the addition to the rail network, it is still an extremely convenient airport for many travellers in the north of England and down into the Midlands. Once one is north of Watford, it is almost as easy to get to Manchester as it is to any other airport in the country.
  When the Minister intervenes, I hope that he will give firm assurances that the money will be made available to enable the rail link to be built. I hope we shall have an assurance that the link will be provided and that it will be no longer necessary to argue on behalf of the project. I ask the Government to give a firm commitment that the money will go to the north of England.
  One factor that has done more for industry in the Greater Manchester area than anything else is the development of the Manchester international airport. The position could be improved even further by the provision of a rail link. A great deal of freight comes into Manchester international airport and it would be a great help if some of it could be directed straight to a rail link rather than having to be transported by road. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the money will be made available, so that British Rail can proceed from its feasibility study to building the link.
  Mr. Tony Favell: I heartily endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the rail link to Manchester airport. It is vital to the north-west that the link is built as soon as possible.
  Mr. Bennett: I am sure that all Members who represent constituencies in Greater Manchester will want to emphasise the need for the link.
  A small link line is proposed at Hazelgrove. When the issue was first discussed I asked for an assurance! that if

  943

  mainline traffic from Sheffield passing through to Manchester and Liverpool was to be diverted from the New Mills, Romiley and Gorton line there would be no harmful effects on the local railways. I understand that the assurance has more or less been given to Greater Manchester council, but I hope that further assurances can be given this evening.
  If the link is built, I hope that it will be available for some of the freight traffic which now has to pass along a circuitous route from New Mills, on to the Denton and South Reddish line, back through the centre of Stockport and down through Cheadle Heath. I hope that that traffic will be able to benefit from the additional track, that the route will be shortened and that some of the nuisance that is caused by trains passing along that line will be reduced.
  There is a great deal of evidence in Greater Manchester of the decline of the railways because of lack of finances. When the Minister intervenes, I hope he will make it clear that he believes that British Rail should have the money to invest in new equipment and new rolling stock. There are many examples of necessary modernisation. The Longsight repair sheds are antiquated and require considerable investment. A great deal of the rolling stock in the area is 20 years old or more, and much of the track needs a great deal of attention. We are giving British Rail the right to build short stretches of extra track and we must ensure that we provide the equipment and finance so that Greater Manchester can have a rail network of which it can be proud in the same way that it is proud of the international airport. An improved network will be extremely helpful to development within the area that will return it to prosperity.
  7.58 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful if I intervene now to restate the Government's view on the Bill. As indicated on Second Reading, the Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been reassured about the effect of the proposed construction works for the Manchester airport loop, following discussions with the board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) has expressed concern about the effects of clause 30 on the use of the landing stage in Portsmouth harbour, which is owned by Sealink Harbours Ltd. The clause has given rise to a good deal of debate both on Second Reading and again today. This is not a matter on which the Government would wish to express a strong view as the issues are essentially local ones. I understand that the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry company has agreed that the responsibility for the landing stage should be transferred to it and that it is seeking the necessary powers in a separate private Bill, which was deposited on 25 November. Provided local agreement can be secured that would seem to be an ideal solution. In the meantime, Sealink is safeguarding its position by seeking in this Bill the power to levy charges in the event of the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry company not taking over responsibility for the landing stage.
  It may be helpful if I add that it is my understanding that the right of objection to the Secretary of State under
  944
  the Harbours Act 1964 would automatically apply to any charges levied by Sealink under clause 30. That may reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North or at least meet his point. In considering any objection to a charge levied by Sealink—I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) are concerned about this—the Secretary of State would have to apply the normal criteria in deciding whether a proposed charge was reasonable and he would certainly take into account, after the public inquiry, the costs being incurred in maintaining the landing stage. I hope that that will go a long way towards reassuring my hon. Friends.
  I should like now to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). The primary purpose of British Rail in seeking powers in relation to Manchester is to safeguard the necessary land. The initiative in making investment proposals rests with British Rail; but I am not aware of any proposal to be put forward in the near future. Ministers would consider any investment proposals carefully and would want to be convinced that they represented good value for money.
  With regard to Hazelgrove, I understand that there are discussions between the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and British Rail over future train services, but they do not envisage that the new connecting line will lead to stations such as Brinnington and north Reddish losing their train services.
  Reference was made to British Rail's ability to find the necessary resources for investment. For the past two years British Rail has not come up against any Government-imposed limitation on investment in its own identification of investment proposals which it wished to take forward. I hope that that will be helpful to the House in considering the Bill.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: While I have no general objections to the terms of the Bill, I must speak to clause 30, which has significant local implications.
  The problem for the Gosport-Portsmouth ferry is that the ferry company decided some time ago that it would levy a single charge in Gosport for the journey between Gosport and Portsmouth, but no charge at all in Portsmouth. Someone making a round trip between Gosport and Portsmouth, making the two journeys, would pay only once in Gosport. Were Sealink to have the power to make a charge, it would by definition make the charge on its own territory, on its own land and on its own approaches in Portsmouth, and therefore would be faced with the inefficiency of having two charges, which the ferry company sought to avoid by introducing the concept of the single charge. The idea of Sealink being able to make a charge is nonsense and one seeks to avoid it. That apprehension was well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) on Second Reading on 15 March.
  We were prepared to allow the Bill an unopposed passage on the basis that discussions would take place and that progress would be sought on a more satisfactory longterm solution for the ownership and operation of the Portsmouth pontoon. That has happened and some progress has been made—progress which, in Committee, I am flattered to say, was described as "vigorous". The Portsea Harbour Company Bill, which

  945
  has now been laid before Parliament, embodies most of the agreement that has been reached and most of the agreement that we seek. It provides for the company to operate the landing stage as a public harbour undertaking and it contains comprehensive regulations under which the public harbour authority must operate.
  Schedule 3 to the proposed Portsea Harbour Company Bill repeals clause 30 of the British Railways Bill, which will solve the problem that we are currently facing. But there is a gap to which we are now addressing ourselves and we need to ensure that there are proper transitional provisions if we are prepared to allow the Bill to proceed.
  It would be reasonably satisfactory—not completely satisfactory—to allow the Bill to go through, provided that we have undertakings on the three points that I mentioned in an intervention to give my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who is sponsoring the Bill in the House, an opportunity to take some guidance and instruction from the sponsors outside.
  First, there should be no charge before 10 July 1985. That should give a full year between the time when the Portsea Harbour Company Bill, given a fair passage, becomes an Act and a charge might be levied. I understand that that point is conceded and accepted by the sponsors.
  Secondly, there should be no charge except any necessary to reimburse Sealink for the net cost of repairing, renewing or replacing the landing stage and its approach. That wording is much more closely drafted than the wording of the Harbours Act 1964, which says that the operator of the landing stage must make only "reasonable charges". I am trying to maintain and retain some of the residual obligations on British Rail which it first assumed in the 19th century when it arranged for the provision of a landing stage as part of its obligation in blocking the common hard. British Rail should accept that there remains a statutory obligation to maintain a landing stage, and it cannot wash its hands completely of that obligation.
  I differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North on my next point. It is not unreasonable that British Rail, through Sealink, should be entitled to make some charge if it is now put to the heavy expense of renewing and replacing the landing stage. My proposed wording is a via media, a compromise, between the obligations under the Harbours Act and British Rail's total obligation.
  Thirdly, British Rail, Sealink, the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company and the local authorities should confirm that it is their intention to support and assist in the promotion of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill and the takeover of the landing stage and approach by that company. I understand that that is included in correspondence between the parties. I also understand that there are several letters dated April and May 1983, the terms of which are confidential between the parties because they contain commercial information. I understand that that point is duly covered.
  I have kept in touch with representatives of Gosport borough council and the Portsmouth Harbour Ferry Company, although I claim no authority to speak on their behalf. I think that there is indeed support for the concept of the landing stage being taken over by the Portsea Harbour Company and for that company to provide proper facilities in due course. I am assured that the Bill has widespread local support, but there might be objections
  946
  and we need to cover that by enacting the transitional provisions that we are now seeking. I expect that Bill to proceed through Parliament.
  I regret that the British Railways Bill is before us today. In a perfect world the Bill would come back later, when we have tied a bow on the Portsea Harbour Company Bill and ensured that that has gone through, so that there is no gap between the two Bills. But that would mean delaying the British Railways Bill by about a year, and we have to face the fact that we have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the continuity and reasonable operation of the Portsea landing stage. Therefore, subject to the points that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, and while I shall continue to watch the Bill like an eagle, I should not wish to divide the House tonight.
  My attitude differs front that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North. I represent Gosport, which already has a very good pontoon facility provided by Gosport borough council, with the assistance of Hampshire county council. We are proud of our pontoon facilities and look with less than equal admiration at the facilities on the Portsmouth side. The fail-safe factor in the present operation is that Portsmouth corporation may have to assume more responsibility for the landing stage if it all ends in tears and we fail to get our Portsea Harbour Company Bill. We might then end up with a better facility which would be an improvement for all those whose land abuts Portsmouth harbour.
  There must be a local authority responsibility to ensure the existence of pontoon facilities of a high quality. The residual obligation on British Rail should be quietly buried as neatly as possible. The undertakings that I have requested would help that to happen, and I hope that the Minister can give a positive response to my request.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I have no wish to inject a controversial note into our deliberations at such an early stage. I shall therefore begin by complimenting the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr McNair-Wilson) on the style with which he set sail from harbour, expecting to find calm water, to explain the contents of the Bill and of clause 30 in particular. The hon. Gentleman was not far out of harbour when he was torpedoed——
  Mr. Prescott: Scuppered.
  Mr. Snape: Or scuppered, as my hon. Friend says, by another ship in his own fleet. It was alarming to hear the expressions used by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about clause 30. Clearly both sides of the House have a duty to look carefully at what is being imposed on the people of Porstmouth when one of their elected representatives has had to express in such strong language his reservations about the proposals.
  I entirely agree with one comment by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North. British Rail is indeed extremely remiss in its lack of communication with Members of Parliament, particularly about constituency matters. It tends to feel that it can leave such matters to its parliamentary agents. That is not good enough. It is especially incumbent on British Rail, as a nationalised industry, to advise hon. Members on both sides of the House when such matters are to come before the House, because any constituency Member worth his salt would

  947
  wish to participate in the debate, or to know exactly what British Rail intends to do in his constituency. It is a recurring and justifiable complaint made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that British Rail often fails to carry out such elementary courtesies, and hon. Members are forced to telephone the various departments of British Rail in an effort to ascertain the board's intentions. It is time that British Rail put that aspect of its public relations in order.
  That is the only comfort that I can offer to Conservative Members. I must now criticise some of their remarks and say that I do not find myself in sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, whose main bone of contention appears to be that British Rail remains responsible for the upkeep of this jetty and pontoon. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion there are no foreseeable circumstances in which the original agreement with British Rail could or should be changed.
  Let us delve into history and consider when and how that agreement came about. The pontoon and gangway with which clause 30 is concerned are maintained by Sealink—if I may quote the legalese of an internal board letter:
  "pursuant to section 10 of the Joint Portsmouth Railway Extension Act 1873."
  It is difficult, 110 years later, to justify Sealink incurring any further cost from a facility from which it receives no direct or indirect benefit. In 1873, when the agreement was made, Britain was in the grip of railway mania. It is as inconsistent to demand that Sealink should continue to bear these costs because of an agreement made 110 years ago as it would be to insist that British Rail should maintain railway stations built at that time, from which, since then, the railway services have been withdrawn. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North would not expect British Rail to staff and maintain the station at Blandford Forum 15 years after the railway line serving that station was closed. That is not a logical or tenable point of view, but that example is as fair as what which we are debating in clause 30.
  I understand that the railway extension was closed and dismantled in 1949. It seems peculiar and inconsistent to burden Sealink with these costs—we finally arrived at the figure of £475,000 per year—35 years after the railway facilities were completely withdrawn.
  I never cease to be fascinated by speeches such as that by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North. On the one hand he would presumably cheer the flinty-hearted attitude of Ministers who say, time and time again, that public owned industries must pay their way. That is what they say when they put up the gas and electricity prices. They say that the railway industry—which they believe to be inherently inefficient—must pay its way. In particular, they say, the freight operations must pay their way, and there is no justifiable claim for subsidy. Presumably the hon. Member approves of those sentiments, but now he is saying that £475,000 is a drop in the ocean to British Rail, which should continue to maintain a structure from which it derives no financial benefit. His attitude is not unique among Conservative Members. He is saying, "Give me capitalism and plenty of it, but not, oh Lord, in my own constituency." The hon. Member is expecting a publicly owned company to provide a subsidy, although the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said in his more
  948
  thoughtful speech on the same clause that it has an excellent jetty and pontoon in Gosport which is maintained by two local authorities.
  Again, I never cease to be surprised at the common sense that one hears during these debates from Conservative Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Gosport advanced a fine defence of municipal Socialism. I commend his sentiments to his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North and hope against hope that the appropriate county council and Portsmouth city council can get together to emulate the fine example set by their counterparts across the harbour in Gosport.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I hesitate to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening with care. However, legal opinion is that the Portsmouth city council does not have the authority to divert funds towards the maintenance of the pontoon, and that doing so would be ultra vires.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I am in no position to challenge what he said, nor have I any wish to do so. It seems strange that across the harbour in Gosport it is not ultra vires to make such expenditure, whereas in Portsmouth it is. I do not know the reasons behind that seeming inconsistency. I do not know whether it is forbidden for the county council to chip in something towards the great costs of this facility. As we heard from the hon. Member for New Forest, no such contribution has ever been made or even favourably considered by either the county or city councils. To suggest that Sealink should continue to pay for this facility in perpetuity is not only economic nonsense but directly contrary to the views that Conservative Members normally expound on nationalised industries.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North looked into the future by suggesting—somewhat inaccurately—that when responsibility for this jetty and pontoon is removed from Sealink it will then fall on the successor company. The hon. Gentleman should carefully consider what he said. Presumably a private company will wish to take over the assets of Sealink. Privatisation is the name of the game, and the Conservative party professes to be greatly in favour of it. Given his knowledge of business, if the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North were the director of such a private company, I wonder whether he would willingly take over this aspect of Sealink's responsibilities. Would he commend to his shareholders that such a company should pay a not inconsiderable sum—£475,000 is not a drop in the ocean—to maintain a facility from which they would gain no benefit whatever?
  What severe imposition is the wicked, publicly owned Sealink seeking to place on the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman's constituents? What sum is it seeking to extort from the hard-up community in Portsmouth? The internal correspondence sent to me by the Railways Board speaks of not more than 5p per person.
  Many people, including many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, benefit directly from this facility. I may sound like a Tory, but I would have thought that the Conservative party would be in favour of people paying for benefits that they receive. Indeed, week after week in the House we hear lectures from Conservative Members praising that principle. It appears that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North would dutifully trip through the Division Lobby to privatise

  949
  Sealink, to give away public assets and to put Toryism into practice in modern day Britain, but would seek to melt our hearts with stories of how Toryism in modern day Britain would affect his constituents. I leave clause 30 with some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's point of view but with no great admiration for his political consistency.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I am disappointed that the clauses relating to the railway works in the Manchester area are merely designed to resolve the ownership of land. There is no real intention of going ahead with this project in the short term. Like my hon. Friend, I am fascinated and depressed by the fact that it is always easy to provide public money for public inquiries into airports in the south of England. There is seemingly a bottomless pit of public money to set up inquiries into such things as the expansion of Stansted and whether the third London airport should be at Maplin, Foulness or some other God-forsaken place on the south coast. But when it comes to public transport links in the Greater Manchester area, which I know fairly well, money is never available and the best that we can expect is a feasibility study.
  How many feasibility studies will the Minister need to be convinced that an international airport such as Manchester ought to be rail-served? How many such studies will he need before he decides to give the go-ahead, or provide the finance to give British Rail the go-ahead, to link Manchester airport with the adjacent railway line? It has been apparent for many years that such a link is needed.
  Having served, a decade or so ago, on a passenger transport authority based in Manchester, I am struck by the fact that money is always available for extensions to the London underground system. I do not disagree with that principle. The London underground is a splendid system. At Heathrow airport, not only has there been necessary, desirable, but admittedly expensive railway extension into the existing airport terminal area, but there is to be a further expansion of that railway quite properly, if expensively, to serve the new terminal 4.
  Turning to railway developments in the Manchester area, I remember the discussion, debates, arguments and pleas of about a decade ago for money towards the Pic-Vic tunnel, as it was then called. No money was available at the time, and no money is available now for Manchester railways links. This is a shameful way to treat the north-west.
  I hope that even at this late stage the Minister and British Rail can get together to find what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North would doubtless call the piffling sum needed to provide a much needed rail link to Manchester airport.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the initiative for instigating any such investment proposals rests with British Rail. If I receive such a proposition I shall give it the most careful consideration.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the Minister. However, that is a very old refrain. He knows full well, given the present political climate and the amount of public support that is made available for British Rail, that British Rail is very reluctant, to say the least, to put forward any such schemes. The Minister knows full well the reasons behind that reluctance.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I invite the Minister to look at the problems on the ground to see what a good job has been done at the airport and how close the railway is to it. For that half-mile or so of track an extremely good return would flow from any investment.
  Mr. Snape: I trust that the Minister heard that invitation. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to extend it to the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary private secretary, as they seem to be involved in such deep and earnest conversation. The hon. Gentlemen can visit Manchester and see for themselves the comparatively short distance that needs to be covered between the existing railway line and Manchester international airport.
  If I were invited to visit Manchester as well, I could bore them with the tales of my time on the railway—I promise not to turn this into "All my yesterdays"—in an undistinguished career which began very close to the point at Heald Green on the Manchester-Wilmslow line where it is proposed the existing main line should connect with the airport. I hope that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend's invitation and will accept it.
  I refer to the clauses in the Bill relating to level crossings and the resulting problems. The Bill omits any reference to the future of the railway line between Doncaster and Hull, a part of the world that will be not unknown to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The existing procedure provides for invocation of the existing law and an approach to the transport users' consultative committee with a view to withdrawing the service.
  I mention the railway crossings and in particular those in the Humberside area. If the proposal to close the line, because of problems with a bridge which has a 60 mph speed limit, is carried through and the service is diverted via Selby over a bridge with a speed limit of 25 mph, very few railway lines will be left in Humberside for there to be any point in discussing the provision of railway level crossings.
  When the House debates comparisons between various modes of transport Ministers continually pooh-pooh the idea of further investment in our railway system or say that such proposals by the British Railways Board will be considered.
  I noticed in a newspaper report only this week that there was talk of men being stationed every few yards along the Severn bridge to check the number of heavy goods vehicles going past to ensure that too great a strain was not being placed on that structure. The Minister might not think very much of the railways, but I can tell him that we abolished policemen—"bobbies" as their successors are still known—standing by the side of the track 130 years ago. Perhaps when we discuss such Bills as this, Ministers—flinty-hearted and tough types though they may be in the present Government, with their Right-wing political virility to prove on every occasion—will pause and reflect that that old-fashioned railway system could provide many of our people with the sort of service that they require if some money was spent on it.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North indends to divide the House after hearing the Minister. I have no doubt that all will become clear in due course. Those of my hon. Friends who can be persuaded to accompany me into the Lobby opposite the one that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North will be in will be more than welcome.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) seek the leave of the House to speak again?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond to some of the matters raised in the debate.
  I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister for his supportive remarks. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who also supports the Bill.
  I shall restrict my comments to those matters which were amended in Committee rather than stray into the perhaps more interesting world of the future of British Rail. Matters have been raised in the debate which require answers.
  Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made me feel how wise the promoters were to include clause 30 in the Bill. I had hoped, as I said in my opening remarks, that the new Portsea Harbour Company Bill would get a fair wind. I am advised that it is supported by all the parties concerned. My hon. Friend's statement that objections would be likely and that the timetable for this legislation could be badly delayed makes me realise that were it not for clause 30 we could easily see the deterioration of the landing stage continuing and no contingency fund of any sort established.
  I find my hon. Friend's arguments about how we are to finance the landing stage extremely confusing. Someone has to pay for it. I pointed out that more than 3 million journeys a year pass over this facility. Although £475,000 is a great deal of money for British Rail, despite what my hon. Friend said, if that is divided amongst the number to which I referred just now it is clear that the charges need not be all that high.
  I am therefore extremely concerned that we realise that these charges are not being levied for any other reason than ensuring the continuation of a facility which every one admits to be of importance to those living in that part of the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North also referred to the communications that he had not had and perhaps justifiably felt that he should have had with the promoters. I am again advised that he was approached at an early stage of the Bill and asked whether he would like a discussion and that he suggested he would leave that to Portsmouth city council. However, I make a clear offer to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that if, after this stage is completed, they would like discussions with the promoters about any of the matters which concern them or which have been raised in the debate, the promoters will be delighted to have such a meeting as soon as possible. No one wants anyone who has taken part in the debate to feel that he is being denied access to information.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his latter comments. However, he has been entirely misinformed. No such invitation was given to me at any time. If my hon. Friend has been led to believe that by the promoters, it only adds to what I said earlier.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend said.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East mentioned his lack of communication with the British Railways Board. This matter was raised on Second Reading. I gave an assurance that it would be drawn to the attention of the chairman and other people concerned. I understand that that was done. If I have misled anyone, I did so on the advice that I was given. Whatever the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, I hope that he will consider accepting the invitation to which I have referred. We do not want to have any misunderstandings on this serious matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport referred to the three conditions that he believed should be met if the Bill is to go forward. I am happy to tell him that they can be met. I said in my opening remarks that no charges would be levied before 10 July 1985 and that the Portsea Harbour Company Bill was to be supported by all concerned.
  I am happy to give my hon. Friend the third assurance. Detailed costings of what is required can be made available. I caution my hon. Friend about wishing to see the sense of clause 6 of the Portsea Harbour Company Bill incorporated into this Bill. The provisions in clause 6 are a good deal wider than anything for which we seek approval. They would move away from my hon. Friend's desire for a tight definition of what the money is needed for.
  The Minister was helpful in ensuring that hon. Members understood his role in the application of the Harbours Act 1964. I am advised that the Act states that any decision taken by the Minister would have to take into account the costs incurred in maintaining the landing stage after the public inquiry.
  I hope that that information reinforces what I have said. There will be no open chequebook for Sealink UK Limited. Our desire is to ensure that we do not pass on to the taxpayers the cost of maintaining a service which is essential to some individuals.
  Mr. Viggers: I am anxious to avoid any misunderstanding. My hon. Friend will realise that for the Minister to take into account the expenses incurred is a different formula from that which I suggested, which is that no charge would be made other than that necessary to reimburse the net cost of carrying out the work. To avoid any misunderstanding, can my hon. Friend confirm that my wording is acceptable to the sponsors of the Bill?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is acceptable. What I said about the Minister's role under the Harbours Act 1964 was a separate and reinforcing point.
  We have had a long and interesting debate. I understand the anxiety of hon. Members about the changes that will follow when the Bill is enacted. I am convinced that an unsatisfactory state of affairs has existed since 1949 when the railway line was taken up. The British Railways Board has been saddled with a loss-making operation and that state of affairs must be corrected. If it is not, the facility may well disappear. If that happens, we would have much more hardship than would be caused by a modest charge to keep the landing stage properly maintained.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  Northern Ireland
  8.44 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
  That the draft Judgments Enforcement (Attachment of Debts) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
  The law in Northern Ireland relating to the attachment of debts is contained in the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The attachment of debt is the process by which debts owing to a judgment debtor from somebody else may be ordered to be paid by that person to the judgment creditor towards the satisfaction of the judgment.
  At present, the Northern Ireland law provides that a sum standing to the credit of a person in a deposit account in a bank shall be attachable, subject to certain qualifications. However, there are exemptions. The law does not apply to any account in the national savings bank, a trustee savings bank or any bank having two or more places of business in Northern Ireland if the terms applicable to the account permit withdrawals on demand on production of a deposit book at more than one of those places of business. That is in article 72 of the 1981 order.
  In that regard, Northern Ireland law is out of step with the relevant law in England and Wales relating to the attachment of debts, which is contained in section 40 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. That section applies to any deposit account with a bank or other deposit-taking institution and any withdrawal share account with any deposit-taking institution. A deposit-taking institution is one which conforms to the definition in the Banking Act 1979, which includes the three types of institution which I have mentioned as being exempted from attachment orders under existing Northern Ireland law.
  The order before us reflects the fact that many people now operate accounts with a building society or a trustee savings bank as though they were bank accounts. Therefore, it is desirable that the procedure for the attachment of debts should be available in respect of sums held by a judgment debtor in such accounts, in the same way as it is available for money in conventional banks. That is what the order is designed to achieve.
  I ought to mention that deposit-taking institutions, as defined in the order, include credit unions within the terms of the Credit Unions Act 1979. Section 83(1) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 precludes credit unions from banking or receiving money on deposit from their members. I understand that it is the Lord Chancellor's intention to introduce an Order in Council in which that provision will be repealed.
  It is also the Lord Chancellor's intention to provide by order that sums of less than £50 shall be exempt. The commencement provisions of the order before us take account of that.
  The Lord Chancellor has consulted the Northern Ireland Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association, the legal profession, citizens advice bureaux and the Department of Finance and Personnel at Stormont. The general view was that the draft order contained a welcome enlargement of the powers of the enforcement of judgments office.
  The Lord Chancellor intends to make an order authorising deposit-taking institutions to deduct the
  954
  clerical and administrative costs of complying with an order made under the new legislation. Such an order has already been made for the corresponding legislation in England and Wales.
  I do not think that hon. Members will require rue to take them through the provisions of the articles. It is perhaps sufficient to say that, by virtue of article 5, two minor errors in the schedule to the earlier order are put right and that article 1 provides that the main provisions of the order—contained in articles 3 and 4—shall come into force on a day to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I understand that that will not be before 1 March 1984.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The problem with debtors lies not with those who attempt to pay their debts, but with those who try to avoid doing so. We are often approached by constituents who are owed money, sometimes considerable amounts of money, and who are finding it very difficult to get the money from a person who in fact has the money, but refuses to pay it. In so far as the order is an attempt to make folk who owe money pay up, it is welcome. It will, I think, make life a lot easier for many people in Northern Ireland, and perhaps harder—I hope it does—for people who are trying to avoid paying their just and lawful debts.
  Most people try to pay, but when they see folk getting away with not paying it is like putting a rotten apple in a barrel—it tends to make the canker spread. I welcome anything that makes people accept their responsibilities, not only in their own households, but towards those with whom they have dealings.
  I recall that this matter was raised in another context, and I have been racking my brains all day about where it was. I think that it was in the Northern Ireland context, and it possibly involved the payment of moneys to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I wonder whether the executive—and other people—will be able to get its debts paid as a result of the order, because I believe that some people have been trying to hide money away. If the order helps the executive to recover rent arrears and other moneys that it is owed, so much the better.
  When I first looked at the order, I was surprised to discover that there were institutions where the money could not be attached. The Solicitor-General told us something of the background, but perhaps when he winds up the debate he could go a little wider and tell us how this situation has arisen. This loophole was not created during the past year or two. It must have existed for somewhat longer than that. If so, why was the loophole not closed long since? It seems unusual that something like this should go on from year to year, possibly even from Parliament to Parliament, without being corrected.
  I have looked at the possibility of the Lord Chancellor extending the list of institutions. I assume that this is an attempt to forestall people creating loopholes in the future. If I understood the Solicitor-General correctly, he said that before the list could be extended—apparently it will be extended in the near future—a further order would have to be laid before the House. I was glad to hear that. I believe that such matters should always come back to the House before authority is given to extend the list of institutions, because the implications could be wider than intended.
  In so far as the law in Northern Ireland is now being brought into line with the law that prevails elsewhere in

  955
  the United Kingdom—which I welcome—I am anxious to know whether the law in the United Kingdom will be the same for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As, apparently, the legislation on this side of the Irish sea has been different from that in Northern Ireland during the past two or three years, is the Solicitor-General in a position to tell us this evening what the effect has been in the application and use of the law in Great Britain? People take advantage of the change in the law, but the general public, and often hon. Members, are not made aware of it until it has been in operation for many years. If there have been occasions in Great Britain when hardship has been caused, or when there have been unforeseen circumstances, the House should be told about them before the order is passed.
  How on earth can the courts, or anybody else, find out whether a debtor has money on deposit? If a debtor has money on deposit, how can anyone discover where it is? A debtor could have money and not talk about it, so that even the courts do not know that the money exists. What happens if deposits are held in a wife's or child's name? Can any machinery make the court aware of such money? What happens if money is held in a company's name? Will the courts be aware of that? Many small companies are set up involving only two or three people, and it might be difficult for a court to discover whether money is available.
  A recent inquiry into the De Lorean mess—that is the only word for it—revealed that considerable sums were moved out of the country. If that happens again, can the money be seized and used to pay debts? Those who want to avoid paying money will always find a way. I hope that in blocking one loophole we are not allowing other and more dangerous loopholes to remain open.
  I am curious about why the opportunity was not taken in the order to ensure that whenever a court order for payment is made it is enforced until the entire debt is paid. We all know of cases where court orders are made, the individual involved changes address, pays once or twice then stops paying, and the unfortunate individual to whom the money is owed has to go through the whole miserable sequence of events again, to find that the same happens yet again. Why has that possibility not been dealt with in the order, because it causes anxiety?
  Why is the order being used to correct errors referred to in article 5? It might have been neater and easier to make the adjustments in a separate order which could have been taken formally. It appears that we are tying two different matters together in the same order. That is, perhaps, a mistake.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an unsatisfactory way to legislate. That view will not come as a surprise to the House. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I look forward to the time when one part of the United Kingdom will no longer have its laws made in this form. We are encouraged in that hope by the fact that on a policy manifesto which included the abolition of direct rule, of which this order is one aspect, we won the election in June in the most striking manner.
  This is a bad way to legislate. The proper method would have been to have introduced a Bill. The order is a good illustration of the deficiencies of this procedure. We are,
  956
  in 1983, amending the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The learned Solicitor-General must tell us whether the matters for which the order provides were overlooked in 1981. If so, why were they overlooked?
  The Solicitor-General said that the order will bring the law in Northern Ireland into accord with that in England and Wales, and he quoted the Supreme Court Act 1981 as the corresponding legislation on this side of the water. But I rather gathered from his phraseology that the provision in the 1981 Act had previously existed, and was subsumed in that Act. Even if it appeared in the 1981 Act for the first time, why was legislation for Northern Ireland in the same year allowed to pass through the House—in all innocence by hon. Members on these Benches, who do their best to take a view on these matters—which put Northern Ireland out of line with the legislation in England and Wales?
  The Solicitor-General pointed out that people are now using building societies and trustee savings banks rather like ordinary banks. But that has not happened since 1981—that was just as much the case when the order was made in 1981 as it is today. No doubt the habit of using trustee savings banks in that way has developed and become more widespread in those two years, but it is not a novelty; it is not something invented between 1981 and 1983. This matter could have been thought of, should have been thought of, and should have been provided for, when we last legislated on this subject in 1981.
  I must voice a suspicion, which I hope is not unworthy, that if those who prepared the legislation were preparing it as it should have been put forward, in the form of a Bill, and with the knowledge that they could not dot the i's and cross the t's afterwards through an order that keeps the House late for one and a half hours at night, they would have been more careful. They would know that it was unlikely that the legislation committee of the Cabinet would look kindly upon the same Minister coming forward two years later and saying to his colleagues, "I am sorry to have to tell you, but there are some things that we forgot to put in the 1981 Bill. Can we please have another Bill?" The Minister would receive an unpleasant reaction.
  However, because legislation is being passed by Order in Council, people say, "That is only Northern Ireland and if anything occurs after it has been passed we can always have another order." Perhaps the Solicitor-General can refute my observations, but on the face of it they are evidence of slipshod legislation two years ago. I regret that I have found other evidence to that effect. When I studied the order I was considerably offended as a parliamentarian to discover in article 3(4) that the Lord Chancellor can alter almost whatever we put into it, add to it or subtract from it by another order.
  I suppose that, having had the unpleasant experience of discovering how much they forgot when drafting the 1981 order, the parliamentary draftsmen—the offshoot of that great race that still survive somewhere in the interstices of the Stormont rabbit warren—said, "We must not risk this again. Let us put something into the article so that we can do it with an order that does not have to come before the House of Commons, and so our faces will not be red."
  We are invited tonight not merely to accept the order but to enable the Lord Chancellor, without further reference to us, to do anything with the order that he likes—to add anything to it or subtract anything from it. It is true that, of his generosity, the learned Solicitor-General

  957
  gave us a specimen in his speech of what the Lord Chancellor might do, and very instructive it was. He said that the credit unions had still not been covered, but we were not to worry because the Lord Chancellor will cover the credit unions by order. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain why there was such a terrible rush to take this order that there was not enough time to draft the necessary additional provisions that will enable us to bring the credit unions, which are of relatively much greater importance in Northern Ireland than elsewhere, and are a much more important source of savings in the Province, into the order. We might just as well have taken our time, done the job properly, and put the credit unions in the order while we were about it.
  We were then told that the Lord Chancellor will use his power to exclude minimal sums and that he was thinking about £50. Although I have considerable faith that the monetarist policies of the present Administration will greatly restrain the progress of that fell disease inflation, I would not make a purist objection to the adornment of this order with a provision whereby the figure of £50 might subsequently be modified by order. That would be a reasonable provision and concession.
  If the learned Solicitor-General can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the minimum should be £50 in the present circumstances, why is it not in the Order in Council, and why is it left to the Lord Chancellor to do it by order-making power? Is that all that the order-making powers would be used for? Is the unlimited power to exclude in article 4(b) to be used only to prescribe £50, or in due course, when inflation has risen to 10 per cent., to increase it to £55? This is bad legislation. This may be a quiet House but bad legislation is going through it.
  Any hon. Member, inspecting the terms of the order while I am addressing the House, might allow his eye to fall on the provisions that allow for future orders made by the Lord Chancellor to be anulled by resolution by either House of Parliament, and might be saying to himself, "Is that not sufficient safeguard? Why should those pernickety Ulstermen complain of having orders made instead of provisions put into the Order in Council? They will still be able to argue and vote against the subordinate legislation under the Order in Council in time to come." I have to tell those hon. Members that I fear that they are mistaken.
  Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for the Solicitor-General to say that when it says in article 4(4) that the
  "order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament"
  it means just that. I hope that he will be able to do that, for it will be the dawning of a blessed day for my hon. Friends and myself, who have writhed hitherto under the injustice of the negative procedure, whereby subordinate legislation in respect of Northern Ireland has, since the Law Officers Act 1944, not been subject to any parliamentary process whatsoever on this side of the Irish sea or the other.
  We are not merely leaving to be done by subordinate order that which could and should be done in the principal order itself, but we are leaving it to be done by subordinate orders, which unlike subordinate orders applying to the rest of the kingdom will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure.
  This is a bad specimen of a bad method of legislation. Although my right hon. and hon. Friends and I consider
  958
  that the provisions it makes are necessary and desirable, we are glad to see covered the institutions which are used as banks. We are also glad to see that the law in our Province will be uniform with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. We should not be doing our duty if we allowed this opportunity to pass without marking our dissatisfaction, which I hope is shared by the whole House. It is essentially an affront to the parliamentary process that this type of legislation, which is now in its ninth year, is used to make or alter the law in Northern Ireland.
  9.10 pm
  The Solicitor-General:I am grateful to those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I shall deal as best I can with the points that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised, but if there are any with which I do not deal I undertake to write to him about them.
  The hon. Gentleman began by welcoming the measure, which makes it easier for a judgment creditor to get his money. I am grateful for what he said in that regard. It is important that we should take all practicable means to enable the orders of the court to take effect when they order that a debt shall be paid. I was grateful for his welcome for the fact that the order provides for an enlargement of the class of accounts in which money is held to the credit of a judgment debtor which shall be eligible for the attachment of debts procedure. I see no reason why a judgment debt in favour of the Executive should not benefit just as a judgment debt in favour of any other creditor would benefit.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why there is a need for the extension. In England and \Vales, the equivalent provision before the 1981 legislation was substantially narrower in regard to the scale of accounts which were accessible under the attachment of debts procedure. That statute was the Administration of Justice Act 1956. The width of that scale was reduced by judgment of the courts. They limited still further the class of accounts to which the attachment of debts procedure applied. In 1981 we were faced in England and Wales with the need to broaden the scale of accounts. That is the case today. Therefore, the enlargement on this side of the water is a relatively recent event.
  The Judgment Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which embodies the law in this regard, was a purely consolidating order. It was not an occasion when the legislature re-examined the issue asking, "How shall we bring matters up to date?" Had it been so, no doubt the opportunity to do the same thing on that side of the water would have been taken. Now, albeit two years later, we are putting matters virtually on all fours with England and Wales.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East said that the law in Northern Ireland will be the same as that in England and Wales, and he asked about Scotland's position. I cannot answer the Scottish question, and I would be rash to venture into a discussion of Scotland's jurisdiction. I shall find out about that matter and let the hon. Gentleman know the answer.
  Equally importantly, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked about the effect of the change of the law in England and Wales. I cannot give figures, but hon. Members can look at the extensive list of accounts and the institutions which, under the 1981 order, are

  959
  eligible for the operation of the attachment of debts procedure in England and Wales. The 1981 order uses the definition of a deposit-taking institution contained in the Banking Act 1979. The attachment of debts procedure will apply to 14 separate institutions or organisations holding accounts. There must be a substantial widening of the power of the courts. I cannot say what the effect has been in money terms, but it has been substantial. I expect that the same results will be enjoyed in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked how the courts discover whether a debtor has money on deposit. There is no sure-fire way of applying an X-ray, as it were, to the affairs of a judgment debtor, but the courts have certain powers under, for example, the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879. In certain circumstances, debtors can be examined about their means. When that has occurred, an obvious question concerns what bank accounts they have. There are provisions whereby bankers must open the accounts. Substantial means for disclosure exist.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why we had not taken the opportunity to strengthen the powers of the courts when a judgment debtor has moved from one address to another. An order applies once it is made. Whether it can be enforced depends on whether the debtor can be located and served with notice of further proceedings. I understand the difficulty. We intended merely an updating exercise to bring the Northern Ireland law of enforcement, in the respects that I have described, into line with the law of England and Wales.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why we should take this opportunity to correct two minor errors in the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 to which article 5 refers. One order is better than two. Since it was found to be in order to put the smaller matter right in this order, it was probably wise and economical to use this measure rather than come before the House with further legislation. On the whole, that is a tendency in Government to be encouraged rather than discouraged.
  I recognise the longstanding objection of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the Official Unionist party to the present legislative base for the Province. The right hon. Gentleman again took the opportunity to express his views on that. We know what the circumstances are. Tonight under existing legislative arrangements we seek to secure the approval of the House for a valuable and useful measure. I believe that I have dealt with his question about whether these matters were overlooked in 1981.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to the power in article 3(4) for the Lord Chancellor to amend as he likes. The answer that I am about to give is one that I may need to correct in correspondence if it proves to be wrong but I do not think that that will be the case. The power which is taken in the article is one which is to be found in the 1981 Act, which is the equivalent legislation for England and Wales. I believe that there is the same power by subordinate legislation to make an amendment. If that is so, it is another example of the parity which we
  960
  are seeking to achieve. If it is not, it is not a point that I am entitled to take and I shall confess that to the right hon. Gentleman in correspondence if I have to do so.
  I think it sensible to have a power whereby the Executive in the guise of the Lord Chancellor can say, "If we are dealing with credit unions, for example, it is important to take account of the fact that the members of such institutions may well have small accounts." That being so, it will be convenient to specify that there shall be a minimum sum below which the attachment of debts procedure shall not operate. It is in the interests of the credit unions that the reference to £50 should be included.
  With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I would not think it desirable to specify such a sum on the face of the order. It may prove to be too low or too high in the light of experience. I suggest that it is sensible to have a provision of the sort which the right hon. Gentleman criticises for fixing an alternative level if so advised.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South asked whether subordinate legislation in this regard can be debated. He has vastly more experience than I of the procedures of the House and he will not expect me to seek to improve upon his own knowledge of these important matters.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have misunderstood me. Under the 1974 interim legislation, it is not clear on the face of it whether the negative procedure applies during the interim period. It was not clear to me whether the provisions that we are discussing were caught by that interim arrangement and it was to that that I was addressing myself. As long as that is the case, there is a valid reason why the apparent identity of law between England and Wales and Northern Ireland is not so close an identity as might to the naked eye appear.
  The Solicitor-General: If that is the case, I acknowledge the validity of the right hon. Gentleman's point. He said that it is not clear to him and I confess that at present it is not clear to me. I would be rash to essay a constitutional proposition on which I was not entirely clear. However, I shall improve my knowledge of these matters and write to him.
  I hope that I have dealt with the helpful and valuable matters that have been raised during the debate. There is no dispute that the substantive provisions are valuable and timely, and therefore I hope that the House will see fit to approve the order.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I say on behalf of the Opposition that, having listened carefully to the arguments, we do not have any objection to this measure and that we shall not be opposing it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Judgments Enforcement (Attachment of Debts) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.

  Northern Ireland

    SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That, in the course of its consideration of the matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 12th December at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: This is the third time in the past nine years that I have had the chance to raise on the Adjournment the issue of the future of St. Wulstan's hospital, Malvern.
  It is a matter of fact that since its opening in 1961 St. Wulstan's has led the world in developing institutionalised techniques for the rehabilitation of mentally-ill patients. This very day Dr. Morgan, the hospital's director, is flying to Chile to address an international conference of psychiatrists in Santiago on the subject of rehabilitation.
  The threatened closure of the hospital, arising out of the decision of the Worcester district health authority, raises a number of problems, and I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to put them before the Minister tonight. The issue illustrates once again the cumbersome, sometimes tedious, undoubtedly expensive and certainly unsatisfactory way in which some decisions seem to be reached within the Health Service.
  Until some time earlier this year—it is part of my argument that we do not know exactly when—St. Wulstan's was the sole responsibility of the regional health authority. This was sensible, as referrals to St. Wulstan's were made from health districts throughout the West Midlands regional health authority and, for that matter, from authorities all over the country. Previous decisions to keep St. Wulstan's open were made largely on the basis that comparable facilities did not exist in the other health authorities in the region. I shall return to this critical point in a moment.
  In recent years the region has maintained a committee structure to oversee St. Wulstan's and has launched at least one inquiry into the management of the hospital. Some time earlier this year—we do not know when—an unpublicised decision was made to pass responsibility for the hospital to the Worcester and district health authority, which now maintains three separate institutions for the mentally ill. In this way—I stress behind closed doors—intolerable budgetary pressures were placed on a single district authority despite the fact that 94 per cent. of the patients at St. Wulstan's are drawn from the whole region and, as I said earlier, from the whole country.
  By implication, and without public debate, there were apparently the makings of a major change in policy away from one by which St. Wulstan's was to be kept open so long as there were no comparable facilities in the region. Such procedures do not increase public confidence that decisions in the Health Service are made on a rational basis. Certainly, in this case, they are not being made on an open basis.
  The second issue raised by the threatened closure of St. Wulstan's, which should certainly be capable of some form of rational assessment, concerns the whole future of institutionalised care of the mentally ill. Of course it must be right to ensure that the maximum number of mentally-ill patients lead lives as near normal as possible within the community. Indeed, by sheer coincidence the Worcester project, one of the most advanced experiments in community care for the mentally ill, operates geographically alongside St. Wulstan's. The fact is that, however successfully community care progresses, there will always
  962
  remain a danger that for certain patients this community care will be a euphemism for throwing them on to the street, especially when resources are scarce.
  The evidence is strong today—stronger than 10 years ago—that, even in the foreseeable future, there will be a role for some form of institutionalised care. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship wrote on 20 August:
  "This Fellowship's experience is that community care—even in those few areas where it is adequately provided—is only suitable for the less severely ill patients."
  According to the fellowship, severely-ill patients still need institutionalised care. The main questions, therefore, are what sort of care should be provided, and in what sort of institutions.
  Since its foundation, St. Wulstan's has successfully striven to break away not only from the practice but from the environment of the 19th century asylum. What has been created has little appeal for those whose ideal is a palace of hygienic plastic. That is part of the promotional problem from which St. Wulstan's has suffered. It is no more than a collection of adequately refurbished separate units, whose prime characteristic in the past 20 years has been the provision of work experience and, above all, a happy home for well over 1,000 patients from all over the country.
  In the 10 years during which I have represented Worcestershire, South my tiling cabinets have been full of evidence from patients, their families, referring doctors and psychiatric experts at home and abroad that what is special about the St. Wulstan's experiment is the sense of community. I have here a letter dated 4 August 1983 from Mrs. Alison Ashfield to the district administrator. It is about the experiences of her twin sister who had been a patient in St. Wulstan's. The letter ends:
  "May this letter be one of thousands that ask for St. Wulstan's to be kept open for the people who would otherwise take a very much longer time to recover or who may never leave the hospital to which they are sent."
  One of the arguments for closing St. Wulstan's has always been the cost of keeping it up to date. The current jargon is "upgrading". One of the figures currently being bandied around is £4·5 million. When I first came into contact with this problem in the mid-1970s the figures quoted for the installation of new heating arrangements were between £500,000 and £1 million, but in fact a fine new boiler and associated heating installations cost only £187,000. People at the hospital now believe that £150,000, rather than the estimated £4·5 million, would be perfectly adequate to improve insulation and carry out regular maintenance in the roofs. There is therefore a large area of dispute. It may cost £4·5 million to create a great plastic palace, but if one is merely trying to run a hospital as it has been run in the past, making sure that it has appropriate heat insulation and is properly maintained, those who are connected with the hospital believe that £150,000 will be sufficient.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address himself to the question of comparable facilities. When the hospital was last threatened with closure, the Government of the day accepted that it should not be closed until there were comparable facilities for the rehabilitation and treatment of the chronically mentally ill throughout the region. That has always been the Government's policy.
  Having set up their own inquiry in the mid-1970s, the Government of the day found that, contrary to what they were told, the facilities in other hospitals throughout the

  963
  region were, by and large, no match for those provided at St. Wulstan's. At that time it was decided to keep the hospital open.
  My only request to the Minister tonight is that before he decides whether or not to support the district health authority's recommendation to close St. Wulstan's, he should send his own inspectors—I stress that—to establish for himself, independently and directly, whether the promised comparable facilities now exist. There is—this is central to my reason for bringing the matter before the House—strong evidence in at least four districts that the comparable facilities do not exist.
  In support of that view I quote from two letters. The first is from Dr. O'Shea, the chairman of the medical staff committee at the John Conolly hospital in Birmingham. He wrote on 3 August:
  "The regional study group on rehabilitation, having paid us several visits, has offered us no additional resources to develop facilities for rehabilitation, only advice about setting up committees and we are only too aware that the minor improvements to other hospitals listed in the consultative document"——
  that is the consultative document of the regional district——
  "offer no prospect of the development of services comparable to those offered by St. Wulstan's. If comparable services were to be developed in each hospital this would be much more expensive than maintaining St. Wulstan's.
  The chairman of the medical staff committee at the John Conolly hospital in Birmingham is quite clear in his mind that there are no comparable facilities in his hospital.
  The second extract is from Dr. Morgan, the director of St. Wulstan's, who on 1 August wrote:
  "Four senior staff from Shelton hospital, Shrewsbury visited us last week and admitted in the course of conversation that they really have no proper rehabilitation service in their hospital. A few months ago St. Mary's hospital, Hereford told us the same. In March, Newtown hospital, Worcester told DHSS representatives that they have no proper facilities to offer to their growing number of long-term patients".
  Those are the allegations. I merely ask the Minister to agree to investigate for himself whether they are true. Whatever his final decision on St. Wulstan's, he owes it to the patients, the staff, the families and the practice of psychiatry to reach a conclusion on the basis of the most objective evidence available to him.
  9.38 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (Mr. Tony Newton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on introducing this debate on the future of St. Wulstan's hospital. It was clear from what he said that the work carried on at St. Wulstan's over the years had been very valuable in developing industrial rehabilitation for the mentally ill. I associate myself and the Department with the congratulations and support he gave to the importance of that work as it had been built up in past years.
  As it happens, as the Minister responsible for the disabled I have a strong interest in the subject. Only last year I had the good fortune to address the annual general meeting of the British Institute of Industrial Therapy. Although I do not recall having the opportunity while I was there to meet anyone from St. Wulstan's, I formed a clear impression of the importance of the industrial rehabilitation work going on in many places throughout the country,
  964
  often being developed in new ways, particularly in connection with the general theme of care in the community.
  I assure my hon. Friend that it is very much the Government's wish to do all we can to support and encourage the development of such work in appropriate ways to suit modern circumstances, whether it be in his area or any other part of the country, and to develop the priority that is given to improved services for the mentally ill.
  I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the care and attention given by the staff of the hospital to the patients living there. My hon. Friend clearly demonstrated the great care with which he has researched the facts and the genuine concern he feels about the position of this hospital. If there is any doubt about that concern, one has only to look at his record of endeavour over the years on its behalf. This goes back to an Adjournment debate that he introduced on 23 March 1977. My hon. Friend's constituents and those concerned with the hospital are very lucky to have a Member of Parliament who has made sure that the case is fully and properly considered before important decisions are taken.
  It follows inescapably from what I have said that St. Wulstan's has been the subject of a good deal of discussion and correspondence. However, it is clear there is still a degree of misunderstanding of the present position. I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the future of the hospital as it gives me an opportunity to go as far as I can, although I fear that it will not be as far as my hon. Friend would like, to clarify the position.
  As my hon. Friend said, the current situation is that consideration is being given to the future of the hospital under the standard procedure for the closure or change of use of health buildings which has been in force since 1975. Under this procedure the district health authority concerned has recently undertaken a comprehensive programme of consultation and, in view of the fact that the local community health council has disagreed with its proposal to close the hospital, has referred the matter with recommendations to the West Midlands regional health authority.
  Regional health authorities are required to seek the approval of the Secretary of State before proceeding with the closure or change of use of health buildings. The Secretary of State has just received from the regional health authority the papers relating to the future of St. Wulstan's and will shortly be considering these, including all the comments received as the result of the consultation exercise.
  My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that in these circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to express a view on the merits of retaining or closing St. Wulstan's. However, I should like to take the opportunity presented by this debate to outline some of the more important recent developments that have led to the present position and to the arrival of these papers on my right hon. Friend's desk.
  In May last year, the West Midlands regional health authority accepted a report from a working party of members of the authority who had reviewed the role of St. Wulstan's hospital. In its report, the working party recognised that patterns of rehabilitative care in psychiatric hospitals had changed considerably in recent years and that, with a few specific exceptions which were

  965
  being remedied, the general standard of rehabilitation facilities and services throughout the region was now comparable to or better than that provided at St. Wulstan's hospital. I emphasise that that is not a judgment that I am making but one which was the conclusion of that working party report.
  The working party also noted a number of weaknesses in the role now played by St. Wulstan's. It noted, for example, that St. Wulstan's was now in effect a long-stay chronic psychiatric hospital and was no longer fulfilling its original brief to provide a regional service and to return patients to their own communities. It also noted that the admission of patients to St. Wulstan's from a regional catchment area and their eventual discharge mainly into the Malvern and adjoining communities was imposing an increasing and unwarranted burden on local social services and housing departments. Again, I report the working party's view rather than endorsing it at this stage.
  The working party pointed out that the numbers of new admissions had fallen considerably since 1975. During the six years 1976–81. admissions had averaged fewer than two patients per month. Only 108 patients had been admitted from other hospitals in the region during that period. Local patients were now treated within the Worcester development project—a programme set up by the Department of Health and Social Security to demonstrate how problems of transition from the old to a modern psychiatric service could be solved in a cooperative exercise involving local and hospital authorities. My hon. Friend will know that this is a type of development to which all Ministers attach considerable importance.
  The working party drew attention to the fact that the regional strategy document published by the regional health authority included among its objectives:
  "To establish in each District a social and industrial rehabilitation programme provided by consultants with a special responsibility working with community nurses and paramedical workers, eg therapeutic staff, social workers and phychologists. Industrial training facilities are essential and should provide courses covering a variety of skills."
  The working party pointed out that, since rehabilitation services should, by definition, be district-based, it was clearly unacceptable, in its view, that patients should continue to be sent to a hospital which might be up to 60 miles from the patient's home district.
  As my hon. Friend is aware, the Worcester and district health authority is responsible for the management of St. Wulstan's. This summer, against the background of the regional working party's report, and as part of its work of ensuring that it was making the best use of its resources, the district authority began a wide-ranging programme of consultation on the future of the hospital. It consulted both on the question of whether the regional rehabilitation service for the mentally ill was still necessary, and on the pattern of services in Worcester which would best meet the needs of existing mentally ill patients.
  The authority considered the results of its consultation on 28 October and, in the light of the comments received, decided that the regional rehabilitation service should end. It also agreed that St. Wulstan's should be closed and that an independent multi-disciplinary assessment panel should assess each existing patient with a view to recommending the most appropriate form of future care.
  966
  As I said earlier, the Worcester and district community health council opposed the closure of St. Wulstan's, and the local health authority has referred the matter to the regional health authority.
  The RHA's sources of advice on St. Wulstan's have been the working party of members which was set up by the RHA in May 1977 and, via the working party, a regional advisory team in psychiatric rehabilitation and a task force appointed by the RHA in June 1981 to obtain detailed basic factual information about the patients resident in and dependent on St. Wulstan's hospital
  In addition, the region's planning advisory group held meetings earlier this year with district management teams. The meetings provided an opportunity to check the situation with those DMTs likely to be affected by any change relating to St. Wulstan's.
  I understand that in all cases it was confirmed that no difficulties could be foreseen in maintaining services in the event of St. Wulstan's closing. Against that background, I understand that the regional health authority supported the closure proposal at the meeting of the full authority held on 16 November 1983.
  I am sorry that it is not possible at this juncture to be more specific about the approach that will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in judging the case before him. Clearly, however, he will wish to examine all the evidence as objectively as possible before reaching a decision. I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that the nature of rehabilitation facilities generally in the region will be a central element in my right hon. Fiend's consideration of the closure proposal. However, I cannot go so far as to say that proof that facilities comparable to those at St. Wulstan's exist in all 22 districts in the west midlands region is an absolute condition for closure.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is giving a fair and reasoned answer to what I have asked. Can he say whether the Secretary of State will examine this matter himself or send one of his inspectors, and not rely just on the advice from the region, because it is a fairly well-established thought, if not fact, that the region has had, from the word go, a point of view about the proposed closure? The working party to which my hon. Friend referred is not truly objective. I have given evidence about the comparable facilities. Will the Government examine the matter, as have other Governments, with their inspectors?
  Mr. Newton: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I hope that he will in turn recognise that the reports coming to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when considering these matters go beyond the information provided by the working party of the regional health authority. I have touched on the views that I understand have been expressed by district management teams throughout the region.
  We shall be looking at the case presented by the regional health authority, together with all the evidence that it has presented, from whatever source, along with all the objections made, including the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred and reaching a judgment on the overall picture. If my right hon. Friend thinks that additional information is needed to enable him to do that, he will, of course, seek it. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, when considering

  967
  these matters, go to great trouble to satisfy themselves that they have a full and proper basis for taking the decision that they are asked to take. I shall communicate to my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the particular anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed and the specific matter to which he referred.
  It has been helpful and instructive to listen to what my hon. Friend has said and in some respects to the additional
  968
  information that he has provided of the background against which my right hon. Friend has to make a decision. I give my hon. Friend an absolute guarantee that all relevant factors, including, not least, what he has said on behalf of his constituents and the hospital, will be reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and taken into account before he reaches his decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Ten o'clock.

ENERGY
  Pre-payment Meters
  Pre-payment Meters
  Gas Meters
  Gas Meters
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Corby
  Corby
  British Gas Corporation (Financial Targets)
  British Gas Corporation (Financial Targets)
  Domestic Gas Market (Revenue)
  Domestic Gas Market (Revenue)
  Gas Connections
  Gas Connections
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Aid
  Aid
  Common Agricultural Policy (Market Regulation)
  Common Agricultural Policy (Market Regulation)
  Grants and Subsidies (Expenditure)
  Grants and Subsidies (Expenditure)
  Humber Laboratory, Hull
  Humber Laboratory, Hull
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Gains Tax Roll-over Relief
  Capital Gains Tax Roll-over Relief
  "Official Report"
  "Official Report"
  Safety Shoes (Taxation)
  Safety Shoes (Taxation)
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
PRIME MINISTER
  Ministerial Engagements
  Ministerial Engagements
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Clinical Students
  Clinical Students
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  Universities (Clinical Salaries)
  Universities (Clinical Salaries)
  Universities (Funding)
  Universities (Funding)
TRANSPORT
  Highway Budget
  Highway Budget
  British Transport Police
  British Transport Police
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Disabled Persons (Dial-a-Ride)
  Disabled Persons (Dial-a-Ride)
WALES
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Language Courses
  Language Courses
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Tokyo Round
  Tokyo Round
  Tin Plate
  Tin Plate
  Alvey Directorate
  Alvey Directorate
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  European Community (Steel Ministers)
  European Community (Steel Ministers)
  Consumer Credit Advertisements and Quotations Regulations
  Consumer Credit Advertisements and Quotations Regulations
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Londonderry (Further Education)
  Londonderry (Further Education)
  Electricity Service (Efficiency Audit)
  Electricity Service (Efficiency Audit)
  Non-Governmental Bodies (Payments)
  Non-Governmental Bodies (Payments)
ENVIRONMENT
  Urban Programmes
  Urban Programmes
  "Empty Houses—No Excuses!" (Exhibition)
  "Empty Houses—No Excuses!" (Exhibition)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Radiochemical Inspectorate
  Radiochemical Inspectorate
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Parole Policy
  Parole Policy
  Sentencing Policy and Parole
  Sentencing Policy and Parole
  Refugees (Asylum)
  Refugees (Asylum)
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Private Security Firms (Licensing)
  Private Security Firms (Licensing)
  Violent Crimes
  Violent Crimes
  Police (Effectiveness and Efficiency)
  Police (Effectiveness and Efficiency)
  Repatriation
  Repatriation
SCOTLAND
  Secondary Schools (Pupil Costs)
  Secondary Schools (Pupil Costs)
  Dryburgh Abbey Hotel
  Dryburgh Abbey Hotel
  Job Prospects
  Job Prospects
  Blood Supplies
  Blood Supplies
  Carstairs Hospital
  Carstairs Hospital
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  South of Scotland Electricity Board
  Hamilton College of Education
  Hamilton College of Education
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Agriculture Industry
  Agriculture Industry
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Rural Areas
  Rural Areas
  Schools (Composite Classes)
  Schools (Composite Classes)
  Housing Repair Grants
  Housing Repair Grants
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Divorce
  Divorce
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Housing
  Housing
  Motor Cycle Casualties
  Motor Cycle Casualties
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Prosecution Policy
  Prosecution Policy
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Sexual Assaults
  Sexual Assaults
EMPLOYMENT
  West Midlands (Training)
  West Midlands (Training)
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Women (Training)
  Women (Training)
  Greater London (Training)
  Greater London (Training)
  Careers Service Advisory Council for England
  Careers Service Advisory Council for England
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary
  North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary
  Health Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Health Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  NHS (Early Retirement Costs)
  NHS (Early Retirement Costs)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Benefits (Earnings Limit)
  Benefits (Earnings Limit)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Supplementary Benefits (Board and Lodging Limits)
  Supplementary Benefits (Board and Lodging Limits)
  Urgent Need Payments
  Urgent Need Payments
  Hospital Treatment Statistics
  Hospital Treatment Statistics
  Private Bodies (Government Assistance)
  Private Bodies (Government Assistance)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  End Stage Renal Failure
  End Stage Renal Failure
  Renal Services
  Renal Services
  Funeral Costs
  Funeral Costs
  Widow's Allowance
  Widow's Allowance
  Widows (Benefits)
  Widows (Benefits)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  PENSIONERS
  PENSIONERS
  NON-PENSIONERS
  NON-PENSIONERS
  AMOUNT OF BENEFIT UNCLAIMED
  AMOUNT OF BENEFIT UNCLAIMED
  MEASURES TO PROMOTE TAKE-UP
  MEASURES TO PROMOTE TAKE-UP
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Housing Benefit (Scotland)
  Housing Benefit (Scotland)
  Camberwell Resettlement Unit
  Camberwell Resettlement Unit
  Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Amendment Regulations 1983
  Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Amendment Regulations 1983
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Overseas Personnel
  Overseas Personnel
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Military and Diplomatic Service (Boarding Education Allowances)
  Military and Diplomatic Service (Boarding Education Allowances)
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Special and Foreign Affairs Councils
  Special and Foreign Affairs Councils
DEFENCE
  Cruise
  Cruise
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Ships (Disposal)
  Ships (Disposal)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Dartmoor Steering Group (Report)
  Dartmoor Steering Group (Report)
  Falklands Airport
  Falklands Airport

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

Lord Broxbourne
The Right Honourable Sir Derek Colclough Walker-Smith, Baronet, QC, having been created Baron Broxbourne, of Broxbourne in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord O'Hagan and the Lord Thorneycroft.
Lord Ashton of Hyde—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Marquess of Townshend—Took the Oath.

British Subjects Overseas: Postal Voting
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: 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 British subjects are serving abroad in the armed forces, the diplomatic service, or in other official capacities; what proportion actually cast votes at the last general election; and whether they can in future be enabled to vote by post.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, there are approximately 92,900 members of the United Kingdom armed forces, 3,100 members of Her Majesty's diplomatic service, and 6,040 other officials, including 340 British Council employees, serving or posted outside the United Kingdom. These figures may include some citizens of the Republic of Ireland. The number of service voters who vote at a particular election is not recorded. The Government are seeking the views of the political parties represented in another place about enabling all absent voters, including service voters, to vote by post.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that, due to the inadequacy of the proxy system, a very small proportion of those people serving abroad in fact voted? I hope that he will continue to put forward the idea of postal votes for them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not have an exact figure for those who voted in the last election, but I am aware of the concern expressed by my noble friend and, as I say, it is our intention to take this on board very shortly.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether primary legislation will be necessary to achieve this object, or is it purely a matter of administration?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we would expect legislation to be necessary, and, the pressures of parliamentary time permitting, we would hope to legislate in the next Session.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, though obviously I would wish to assist any voters to record their vote, is it not a fact that extension of postal voting for these categories would possibly entail a change in the timetable for the election? Is it not also the fact that since 1945 no postal votes have ever been allowed to any person living overseas? Can the Minister say whether this is a single issue that is being considered, or is it in a general package of amendments to the Representation of the People Acts?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first supplementary question, we judge that there is time within the existing timetable for the acting returning officer at a parliamentary election to issue a postal ballot paper, and for it to be returned from most parts of western Europe before the close of the poll. Wider issues are, I think, for the discussions that I have already described. As I have told your Lordships, it is intended that this should be part of a piece of legislation which is under review.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that in the referendum on the EEC we made arrangements for members of the armed forces serving overseas to vote, quite apart from the postal vote? That worked very well indeed. Will he look at that precedent'?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we will look at all precedents and, in particular, that one.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this will refer to those working in a business capacity in Europe, and also those working in the Church?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Question relates only to those classes of person referred to by my noble friend, but our review is concerned with enabling all absent voters, including service voters, to vote by post.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, in the light of the information that we have about western Europe, what about the soldiers serving in the Falklands? Will they be able to vote?
Lord Elton: My Lords, our concern extends to all members of Her Majesty's forces and the other categories described by my noble friend. The logistics of this matter will be closely considered in devising what is to be done.

Grenada: Casualty Figures
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 the Commonwealth were killed and injured in the American invasion and occupation of Grenada.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young):My Lords, the United States authorities have told us that 45 Grenadians were killed and 280 wounded. No citizens of Commonwealth countries other than Grenada were killed or injured.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that many varying figures have been given as to the killed and wounded citizens of both Commonwealth and other countries? Is she satisfied that this invasion of Grenada, which was claimed to be to save life, has actually saved more lives than it has cost?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the first supplementary question, I have given the figures which were provided by the United States in Washington, and to the best of my knowledge and belief they are the best, up-to-date and correct figures that we have. On the second point, it is not for me to speak for the American Government: but one of the reasons given for the action they took was to save the lives of American citizens in Grenada.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is it possible to guess how many of our Commonwealth citizens were saved and their property preserved by the rescue action taken by the Americans? Will we take proper steps to express our gratitude?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is a very dangerous thing to guess at anything on an occasion such as this. We have said that we wish to see a return to democracy in Grenada, and we hope that that process is now taking place.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether she would not agree that in the granting of independence to any nation it is always difficult for Britain to decide the right time, and that in the case of the invasion of Grenada this was a rescue of the Grenadian people from an intolerable situation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we did not take the view at the time of the invasion that it would be justified for us to participate in military action. We took this decision in the light of our exchanges with Caribbean Governments and the United States and the decision of CARICOM in favour of political and economic measures against Grenada.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I see the word "invasion" is on the Order Paper. Was this an invasion: and, if so. how could it be? According to everything that I have ever heard an invasion is an
692
incursion into another country, either military or otherwise, against the wishes of its inhabitants or its Government. Can the noble Baroness tell me whether this was against the wishes of the inhabitants of Grenada? They seem to have been very happy about it. Was it against the wishes of the Government of Grenada? If so, was this the murderous army which had just murdered the Prime Minister and seven of his colleagues? That so-called Government was not recognised even by Cuba or Russia. Was not the only part of government remaining the Governor General, who called for help?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not intend to dispute the terminology here. The fact was that the Organisation of East Caribbean States asked the United States to intervene in Grenada.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to give the House any information about the proposal for a Commonwealth peace-keeping force in Grenada? If such a proposal comes forward, will Her Majesty's Government be prepared to participate in such a proposal? I am asking this in the hope of some constructive rather than destructive questions.
Baroness Young:My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. In the communique which the Commonwealth leaders issued at the end of their meeting in New Delhi yesterday they have asked the Commonwealth Secretary General to undertake a special study of the needs of small states. We stand ready to assist as appropriate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as this invasion took place against the wishes of Her Majesty's Government, what protest has Her Majesty's Government made to the Government of the United States concerning the matter? What claims for compensation have been put forward on behalf of the dependants of the Grenadians who have been killed?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is well aware of the stand that we took on the resolution of the United Nations when we abstained. My reply to his second point is that that would be a matter for the Grenadian authorities.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, in view of the question that has been asked, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many Grenadians were killed or wounded when the People's Revolutionary Army turned its guns on the populace prior to killing the Prime Minister, three Cabinet Ministers and two trade union leaders?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I regret that I do not have those figures available. If I can get them I shall write to the noble lord.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness care to pay tribute to those of our Commonwealth partners, notably Jamaica, Barbados and Dominica, who have helped to restore freedom and the rule of law to the people of Grenada?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am well aware that contributions towards the forces in Grenada were sent

693
from a number of Caribbean countrics of the Commonwealth, which was their right. Her Majesty's Government are pleased that there will soon be a return to democracy in Grenada.
Lord Brockway:My Lords, have the Government noted the declaration yesterday by the Commonwealth Ministers' Conference welcoming a civilian Government, demanding the withdrawal of all foreign troops, an early election and a contribution by Governments for the restructure of Grenada? Have the Government reached any decision about such aid?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the United States have said that combat troops are due to leave Grenada by Christmas. On the second point, the noble Lord will he aware of the answer that my right honourable friend Mr. Raison gave in another place on 28th November indicating that we have agreed to provide a total of three quarters of a million pounds in grants to help meet immediate development needs, including help with police training, and with training and advice.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness the Minister feels as deeply saddened as the rest of us by the loss of life in this Commonwealth country and I should like to ask her to express that regret on behalf of the Government and of Parliament. In view of this loss of life among Commonwealth citizens, may I ask whether her attention has been drawn to a report in the American Time Magazine which states that the White House was,
"looking for any opportunity that came along where we could take a direct punch at the other side's nose"—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I continue:
"with a maximum chance of success and minimum"—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the attention of the noble Baroness been drawn to this question, and does the Government equate this with the American claim that they went in to Grenada in order to save American lives?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on an article which appears in an American magazine. Her Majesty's Government have accepted the explanation that the Americans gave for their intervention in Grenada as being the correct one.

Mr. Keith Carmichael
3.2 p.m.
Lord Avebury: 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, in view of the serious danger to the health of Mr. Keith Carmichael and the risk of permanent damage to his spine arising from the lack of medical treatment in the prison where he is held on remand in Aiyadh,
694
Saudi Arabia, they will make representation to the Saudi authorities that he should be released on bail, for the purpose of obtaining treatment in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Young: My Lords, representations were made by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the Saudi Foreign Minister during Prince Saud's recent visit here, and later by our Ambassador in Jedda, requesting the release and repatriation of Mr. Carmichael for further medical examination and treatment in the United Kingdom. Saudi legal procedures have no provision for bail as such, although a person held for debt can be released from custody if a guarantor is found to stand surety for all claims against that person. In Mr. Carmichael's case it has not been possible to find such a guarantor. There has been no official response to our representations from the Saudi authorities so far but Prince Saud did promise to do what he could to speed up the legal process. There is evidence that this is indeed happening. We shall continue to press the Saudi authorities to resolve this case as quickly as possible.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we are most grateful for the help that she has given to Mr. Keith Carmichael and, particularly, for the representations that have been made at the highest possible level that he should be allowed to come back to Britain for medical treatment? Has she studied the report by the consultant traumatologist, who said that Mr. Keith Carmichael was suffering from a compression fracture of the spine which caused him excrutiating pain? If it is not possible to arrange for Mr. Carmichael's repatriation immediately, could he not at least continue to be treated by the consultant in whom he has some confidence, and could he not be allowed the physiotherapy on a daily basis which the consultant has said is necessary if Mr. Carmichael is not to suffer permanent incapacity in his future life?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the acknowledgement of the help that has been given by our embassy in Saudi Arabia. On the question of the present state of Mr. Carmichael's health, we are of course concerned. That is why we have continued to make representations about his case.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Minister say how often the British consul is allowed to visit prisoners, when the British consul last visited prisoners and whether the embassy is giving the highest priority to the need to get medical attention for the prisoners?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the embassy first gained access to Mr. Carmichael in prison on 31st January 1982. On my calculation of the numbers of dates, he was visited on 13 occasions in 1982 and has been visited on 20 occasions in 1983. A call was made to the prison, but Mr. Carmichael was in hospital.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has a report upon the case been sought from the director of the curiously called Civil Rights Centre, where Mr. Carmichael is

695
held? May I ask a further general question? Is the noble Baroness aware that reduction in our consular representation overseas has meant in some cases that British nationals kept in prisons overseas are not getting the assistance that they require?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if I may take the noble and learned Lord's last point first, I think that it will be quite clear from what I have already given in answer to his noble friend who put the preceding supplementary question that the embassy have taken a great deal of care in this particular case, and that we continue to make representations. In reply to the first point that he raised, I think it very important that in making representations to the Saudi Government we leave it to the embassy to advance Mr. Carmichael's case in whatever way they judge is the most likely to produce results.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many United Kingdom citizens are held currently in Saudi gaols? Has she any information on how many of these are sick; and is she confident that they are as a whole being given the necessary medical attention?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's supplementary question without notice. I have no reason for supposing, if there are a number of other British citizens imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, that they do not have the same attention from the embassy as has Mr. Carmichael.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a feeling that American citizens in Saudi gaols requiring medical attention have received somewhat better treatment than our own prisoners, and that one such person was recently transferred to the King Faisal specialist hospital for treatment? Could we not make additional representations that Mr. Carmichael be treated in that hospital where proper orthopaedic facilities are available?
Baroness Young:My Lords, I really do not feel that I can add anything to what I have said with regard to the representations that we should make. In cases like this, I think that those who are in the embassy on the spot are in the best position to judge what is the right procedure. I would advise that we should leave it to them, bearing in mind all that the noble Lord has said about this case.

Greece: Mr. Francis Noel-Baker's Estate
3.8 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: 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 the Prime Minister will, on her visit to Athens, raise with the Greek Government the question of the protection afforded to the property of British residents in Greece; and whether she will ask the
696
British Ambassador to visit or send a representative to visit Mr. Francis Noel-Baker's 150 year-old home at Ackmettaga in Euboea and report to her.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have no reason to believe that the measures taken by the Greek authorities, who are responsible for the maintenance of public order, are insufficient. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Athens is in close touch with Mr. Francis Noel-Baker about his estate and continues to be ready to offer whatever help he properly can.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Mr. Francis Noel-Baker, who is listening now, would not agree to that Answer, that our Ambassador has frequently been invited to come and see, for instance, the desecration of the family graves of British people, the Noel-Baker family, some of whom died in the service of Greece; that the people who desecrated those graves are perfectly well known but that no kind of action has been taken against them; and that this is only a small item in the catalogue of things that have happened? Can we be assured that the Prime Minister will take steps to see that she is properly informed as to what has happened when she visits, and will raise the matter? After all, is it not a fact that one of the rights enjoyed by British subjects since the great days of Lord Palmerston is to be protected by our Diplomatic Service wherever their rights are infringed anywhere—
A noble Lord: As in Grenada?
Lord Paget of Northampton: Surely this is a good example.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Athens, and his staff, have kept in close touch with the Noel-Bakers during the past few years and have given all the help they possibly can. They have frequently taken up particular points with Greek Ministers and with officials.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she will consider this again? The Noel-Baker family have given great service to Greece in the past. I have personally stayed on the estate and have seen the work that they have done on the estate and with the villages. I think a little word from her might stop the harassment that they are receiving at the present moment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully understand and appreciate the point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I myself saw Mr. and Mrs. Noel-Baker earlier this year; and, as I have said, it is our intention to be as helpful to the Noel-Bakers as we can. But I do not think it would be right or appropriate for us to dictate to our ambassador what he feels he should do in these circumstances. I have no doubt that he will take note of the points that have been raised at Question Time here today.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of the rights enjoyed by British citizens overseas, does the noble Baroness recall, in relation to the final part of the

697
supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, that, another place having first supported Lord Palmerston in the representations he made on behalf of Don Pacifico, later on he concluded he was wrong in that regard?
Baroness Young:My Lords, I am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said about history in the 19th century, but I think we have to remember that we are in 1983 now.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, may I return to the fundamental point? We can be assured, I take it, that on her visit the Prime Minister will make it clear to the Greek Government that we are concerned about this?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to determine what points she takes up during her visit to Greece, and it would not be right for me to pre-empt anything she might consider in that regard.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on public disorder in Warrington.
With the leave of the House, in the normal way I should like to say a brief word about the timing of the two Short Debates this afternoon standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Following the principle that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, may I suggest that other speakers in today's first debate, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, should limit their speeches to a maximum of 14 minutes. Perhaps I should emphasise that this is a maximum and that there is no obligation on any noble Lord to take any more of this rather generous ration than he strictly needs.
As regards the second debate, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I am afraid that the maximum there must be six minutes, and if any noble Lord should extend his speech beyond the confines of that he really will be doingso at the expense of later speakers in the debate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question arising out of his statement just now? In the event of noble Lords not taking up their full ration of time in the first debate, will it be added to the time available for the second debate?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am afraid that is not so. Under Standing Orders, each debate has a maximum of two and a half hours, and it is not five hours for the two.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of a Cable Authority and to make other provision with respect to cable programme services; to amend the Broadcasting Act 1981 and to make further provision with respect to broadcasting services; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Housing
3.15 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead rose to call attention to the deplorable state of the nation's housing stock, particularly that of post-war housing, and to the measures necessary to deal with the problem; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I regard this subject as of the utmost importance, and it is my view that it is one which has been seriously neglected during the last few years. The Government's English housing conditions survey of 1981 showed that there were 1,116,000 dwellings which were unfit to live in, and a further 1,312,000 in need of repairs, each costing £4,500 or more. It is estimated that there are 1.1 million dwellings, both fit and unfit, requiring repairs costing more than £7,000 per dwelling. There are 1.48 million dwellings lacking basic amenities; and overall it is estimated that there are 4.3 million dwellings in serious disrepair. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimates that each year 40,000 dwellings become unfit and 100,000 dwellings deteriorate into serious disrepair. It is estimated that the cost of bringing the stock into good repair may be about £30 billion.
The number of unfit dwellings has remained at over 1 million for 15 years. I also wish to point out that the £4,500 figure for repairs represents a 44 per cent. increase on the figure in the 1976 Government survey. Thus, despite the payment of over 1 million renovation grants between 1971 and 1981, and the clearance or closure of nearly half a million dwellings, unfitness has remained at the same level, and the rate of deterioration of the stock continues to add to the number of properties in serious disrepair.
The rate of clearance of houses in England has now fallen below 20,000 a year, and at that rate it will take 900 years to replace the stock. In the year to June 1982, 71,000 families in England were classified as homeless, and since that figure does not include single people who are homeless and who have no statutory right to be housed under the Homeless Persons Act, and those deemed to be intentionally homeless, as well as the thousands who turn for advice to various housing advice centres, the degree of homelessness is very much greater than the figure would suggest. There are over 1 million people on local authority waiting lists.
Now let us take a look at the situation in London. where there are 241,000 homes which are unfit for human habitation. There are 478,000 houses in serious disrepair and 219,000 houses which lack basic amenities. We are talking about London, the nation's capital. In total, one dwelling in four in London is unsatisfactory; that is, some 640,000 houses. About 130,000 householders and their families live in overcrowded conditions and nearly 200,000 share their accommodation with another household, many of them involuntarily. There were 20,000 families accepted as homeless in the year 1982–83—I ask your Lordships to remember that the year I quoted for England was to June 1982, which is the latest figure I have, but the year for London is 1982–83—and ¼million applicants for local authority waiting lists. Again, in the year 1982–83, over 90,000 new applicants were received on the waiting lists held by the London boroughs. Research in the London borough of Brent has indicated that only about 6 per cent. of families on the waiting lists have incomes which would enable them to buy their own homes, and the figure rose to no more than 22 per cent. under the best possible shared ownership arrangement.
As for post-war housing, to which I draw special attention in my Motion, the majority of post-war problems occur in the public sector housing stock, the bulk of it related to non-traditional housing built before 1960 and system-built housing of post-1960. These are the buildings that have led to the problems associated with tower blocks and other high-rise dwellings. My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has taken a great personal interest in this problem and I shall leave him to deal with it when he addresses your Lordships.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that the picture I have painted is a grim one. It faces us with a challenge which it is our duty to meet. The obvious solution is to allocate more resources to the preservation, renovation and renewal of our housing stock. Unfortunately, the Government seem to take the opposite view. Investment in housing, as indicated by housing investment programmes, has fallen—not risen—by 45 per cent. since 1979–80 and housing starts have fallen from 225,000 in 1979 to 193,000 in 1982. I should like to remind your Lordships that in 1977 the then Government indicated in their survey that we needed to build 300,000 houses per year. So your Lordships can see how far short we are.
But that is not the worst of the picture. The latest estimate suggests that there are 400,000 unemployed workers in the construction industry. Research at the Building Research Establishment suggests that, for every 1,000 additional homes built, up to 1,500 jobs could result in construction and in the economy as a whole. and that for every 1,000 houses renovated up to 700 jobs could be created by the same process. So the allocation of additional resources to the building and renovating of houses can be a powerful stimulus to the economy, and can help in the reduction of unemployment, at the same time as providing much needed accommodation for the people. Yet on 17th November the Environment Secretary announced further cuts in the housing capital programme for 1984–85.
The continuing cuts in the housing programme can only spell misery for the people; misery for those stuck in Victorian terraces with private landlords, who are sometimes unwilling and often unable to repair or improve their properties; misery for people living in the estimated 180,000 houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales, including some 77,000 retired pensioners. We do well to remember that no fewer than 550 people were killed as a result of fires in multiple occupied houses in the four years 1978–81, and that the risk of death or serious injury in these fire traps is 10 times higher than in self-contained homes.
Then there is misery for the estimated 1½ million retired owner-occupiers living in ageing property on very low incomes. They need help. There is misery, too, for the untold thousands of tenants living in damp, cold and often unsafe conditions in the system-built disasters of the 1960s, which councils simply cannot afford to demolish and replace or to repair, or to strip, on anything like the scale that is necessary, of the huge amounts of asbestos that have recently been discovered.
The Government must re-think their approach to the housing problem. If there cannot be more money allocated to housing, then the present amount must be redistributed. The Treasury has recently estimated that £2,150 million was forgone in mortgage tax relief in 1982–83 and since there are more mortgages in 1983–84 the figure will be higher. If that figure is added to the £2,522 million housing investment allowed for 1984–85. it will provide a handsome sum with which to tackle the housing problem.
I am not suggesting an immediate abolition of mortgage tax relief. However, I am suggesting that mortgage tax relief should be regarded as part of housing expenditure; that, in that form, the expenditure is not going to the area of greatest need and that there should be some reform which will allow the expenditure to go where it is most needed.
In a short debate like this—I had not realised that there would be so few speakers or I might have gone into the subject further—it is not possible to go into details. But I hope that the Government will take this one on board, for it seems to me incredible that, with housing needs as they are, the Government insisted in the last Budget on raising the level of mortgage tax relief to £30,000. It ought to have been reduced from the level at which it stood and restricted in its distribution, the resulting resources being used for home improvements, which is where they are needed. Instead, the Government have done the direct opposite.
I notice that I have used up my 15 minutes, so I shall come to a halt. However, let me end by saying that I was very impressed by the arrangements recently made between the Greater London Council and the Abbey National Building Society for work in this field. I hope that the Government will take on board this aspect and seek to extend co-operation between local authorities and the building societies in order to increase the resources available for the work.
As I said at the beginning, to me this issue is of the utmost importance. I implore the Government to treat it as seriously as it deserves. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Byers: My Lords, the House is indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this urgent problem of housing. The House will also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis.
In this short debate I want to put forward just a few complementary propositions on the housing problem. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has given us the figures. However we measure it, our housing problem is vast. I am not going to repeat the figures, but in addition to the totals, the stock itself is in an appalling state and is getting worse. The picture which has been painted by the noble Lord represents, in terms of human suffering and deprivation, something which we simply cannot shrug off. That situation was well described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the early pages of his excellent report on the disorders in Brixton. In the report he states:
"The general picture of housing provision both in Lambeth as a whole and Brixton in particular is one of considerable stress".
That wording was well selected, for housing was identified as an important factor in creating the climate in which disorders are likely to take place.
The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the national dwelling and housing survey of 1977–78 showed a shortage of about 20,000 dwellings in Lambeth when compared with the number of households requiring a separate dwelling. The council's waiting list was then 18,000, 12,000 households lived in overcrowded conditions, and a further 8,000-plus lacked one or more amenities. That was the background to the climate in which the disorders took place.
This is a frightening social problem, made worse, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, points out, by local authority indecision—and, he could have added, avoidable delays in local authority procedures and systems. This is not an isolated case. It is replicated all over the country. But I say without hesitation that we cannot afford a social policy of this kind which breeds hopelessness and despair and puts the whole basis of our society at risk.
The second proposition is that this is no time for the Government to cut down the allocation of money for housing—money both for building new houses and for rehabilitation. It must be totally wrong-headed, for both social and economic reasons, to reduce cash in this field. At the very least, such a policy will accelerate the decline and decay of the inner cities when so many of us are trying to help with their improvement. It is not an easy job. The Daily Telegraph of Friday last, 25th November, reported that the Treasury was cutting nearly £450 million—a reduction of 20 per cent.—from its contribution to the amount which councils in England and Wales will be able to spend on housing next year. That really is lunacy. Far from the allocation being reduced, there should be positive plans for increasing the amount spent on housing by local authorities, central Government and the private sector if we are to make any impression on the backlog which has been building up in recent years.
What is more, each year that we fail to make adequate provision means that the bill becomes more costly, and our money provides less. This must be the
702
height of stupidity and short-sightedness. The money must be spent wisely and not wasted—as it has been, I am afraid, by Labour and Conservative councils and Governments—on high-rise blocks, mid-rise blocks, deck access blocks and walk-up blocks, all of which have proved to be quite disastrous. Many of these mistakes could have been avoided, or at least not repeated, if at the design stage the future tenants had been properly consulted as to their wishes and needs.
The third complementary proposition is that increased capital spending on house construction and rehabilitation makes excellent economic sense when a country is in recession, not only because it helps the unemployment situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said, but also because selective capital investment stimulates the demand for goods manufactured in British factories. This helps our order books. New demand is set up for steel, bricks, cement, glass, porcelain ware, furnishings, furniture, and all the other items which go to make up new or rehabilitated housing.
The first proposition, therefore, is that bad housing causes severe social stress, which can lead to violence and disorders; but even if it does not, it should not be tolerated in a civilised society. The second proposition is that the longer there is inadequate provision for tackling building and rehabilitation, the more it will cost in the future. The third proposition is that the spending of capital on housing should be increased, and not reduced, as an aid to increasing the order books of British manufacturers. This is no new proposal. We have put it forward on numerous occasions since at least 1980. Over that period, prices have risen by 25 per cent. This alone should illuminate the need for bringing a new dimension into our social and economic priorities.

Messenger Newspaper Group: Picketing
3.37 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the picketing outside the premises of the Messenger Group of Newspapers in Warrington last night and in the early hours of this morning.
"I understand from the Chief Constable of Cheshire that between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. last night the number of pickets increased rapidly from 500 to about 4,000 people. Their purpose was clear. It was not to communicate information. It was not persuasion. It was not even demonstration. It was to prevent by physical force and weight of numbers newspapers being taken out of the premises.
"Many of the pickets had travelled from far afield; many came prepared for, and used, violence against the police. A number were armed with offensive weapons, such as iron bars.
"At the height of the operation, the Chief Constable deployed over twelve hundred men, from his own force and those of Greater Manchester,

703
Merseyside and Lancashire. As a result, the vehicle carrying the newspapers was able to leave the premises at the time planned at 5 a.m. this morning, and did so. The pickets began to disperse from about 6 a.m.
"During the course of the disturbances, police officers were attacked and missiles were thrown at them. Twenty-three officers were injured and three have been detained in hospital. I am glad to inform the House that at present none appears to have been seriously injured. Thirteen pickets are recorded as having been injured, one of whom remains in hospital. Again I understand his condition is not serious.
"A total of 86 people were arrested for a range of public order offences and offences of assault and obstruction.
"I have conveyed to the Chief Constable my great appreciation of the police operation. and the way in which his officers and those of the other forces dealt with an immensely difficult situation. It is a great tribute to them that the lawful right to move the newspapers was upheld. I have asked that my concern and sympathy should be passed on to the injured officers, as I did in the case of those who incurred injuries last week.
"I understand that the number of pickets has now declined to about 150. But there are threats that large numbers will try tonight to repeat the events of last night and this morning.
"The Chief Constable has responsibility for maintaining the rule of law and devising and executing the appropriate plans for doing so. I have made it crystal clear to him that if there is any assistance he requires from me, it will be readily available, and he will have my complete support for the exercise of his very considerable powers to the full extent that is required to deal with the situation.
"Mr. Speaker, there is and can be no excuse for violence and the attempt by intimidating weight of numbers to negate the lawful rights of other people. Irrespective of the merits of the industrial dispute, what has happened here amounts to breaches of what has always been the criminal law. The place and pretext for its breach makes no difference whatsoever. Violence at the picket line is as indefensible as violence at a football match or anywhere else.
"Action of the kind we saw last night cannot and will not be tolerated. I hope that the House as a whole will join me in condemning what occurred, and the mass picketing which was its cause, and giving every support to the police in preventing or dealing with a recurrence".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords. we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. In response to what the Home Secretary has said, I may say that the confrontation which led to violence of the kind which broke out in Warrington last night and which led inevitably and regrettably to both police and pickets being injured must be greatly deplored.
704
Is the noble Lord aware that if a law in this country is shown to be a bad law then the course to be followed is to use all constitutional means to change or repeal it at the earliest opportunity? Did he note that in the report leaked yesterday, and reported in today's issue of the Guardian, the Master of the Rolls said (and I quote) that,
"the legal system was not in practice even-handed as between employers and unions; current functions put the courts almost entirely in the business of restricting or penalising the latter, and not remedying their grievances"?
Does that not indicate that the Government should take a new look at trade union legislation generally and at their current proposals, which have led to tensions and which are against the public interest?
Is it not essential that this damaging dispute should be brought to an end as quickly as possible—and does the Minister take that view? Can he say what steps are being taken, therefore, to speed the conciliation process and further to involve ACAS in the dispute?
With regard to the allegations which have been made that the police—with whose difficult and thankless task we all sympathise—extensively damaged the NGA's communications van and that individuals were beaten and assaulted, can we assume that an investigation will he held and that a report will be made as soon as possible on those allegations?
Finally, do the Government themselves propose to take any specific action to help to achieve a long-term settlement of this unhappy dispute?
Lord Harris of Greenwich:My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches wish to say in the most unqualified terms (unlike the statement that has just been made by the Leader of the Opposition) that we warmly approve of the action of the police last night, and we wish the Chief Constable of Cheshire to be told on our behalf—and. I am sure, on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the House—of our warm support for the bravery and courage of many of the police officers concerned, who were so viciously abused last night?
Is the noble Lord not aware that a very serious situation is developing in which, notwithstanding the violence which took place last night, the organisers are now encouraging other trade unionists, and many who are not members of any trade union, to go to Warrington for a further serious disturbance this evening? Is he not aware also that the full moral responsibility for any injuries which may be caused as a result of these disturbances tonight will lay with those who are so irresponsibly urging people to go to Warrington?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their comments and queries about the Statement from another place which I repeated. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, endorses the belief of all your Lordships that it is better to proceed by constitutional methods and not by unconstitutional methods. It is right to proceed by argument at Westminster and not by intimidation at Warrington when it comes to changing the law.
As to the question of legislation, I do not consider that a Statement on the outbreak of public disorder at Warrington is the occasion for a forum on the ethics of

705
trade union legislation. But I can tell the noble Lord that the legislation we have is just, and is seen as being just by the country as a whole; and what is going on at Warrington is seen and thought by the whole nation to be unjust, and something that should be stopped—and that is what we propose to do.
If there are allegations of brutality by the police, it is strange that there have been no complaints of that nature made under the proper procedure to the Chief Constables concerned, and I hope that those who are aware of any such circumstances will make those complaints. I cannot comment on events which have not been reported reliably to me.
We wish to have this matter disposed of swiftly. There is the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service available for that purpose. The Government themselves should not be drawn into this dispute; the parties to the dispute are at liberty to go to the service.
I should like particularly to welcome the supportive remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, from the Benches on which he sits. I agree with him entirely as to where moral responsibility for all the ills flowing from this disgraceful episode properly lies.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, on a slightly different point about this whole matter, is it not ignominious to the legitimate local weekly press that such organs should be called "newspapers" universally when they are in fact giveaway sheets? Is the noble Lord not aware that in my own area they have already killed off the Stowmarket Chronicle and its associated papers, and that they will probably do the same to the Bury St. Edmunds Free Press quite soon? Would not the NGA's time have been better employed if they had blacked right from the start giveaway newspapers, which every jobbing printer throughout the country seems busy producing? They give blanket coverage of a whole ward or village by sending out school-leavers, who would be otherwise unemployed, to distribute them free. What are the NGA doing? They are hitting at the point where the press is most vulnerable—in Fleet Street, and in Gray's Inn Road—and messing about with idiotic people in Warrington.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Marquess will realise that the Statement is about the preservation of law and order in Warrington, and is not about the editorial standards of local newspapers throughout the country. I entirely agree with him that the NGA would have been better employed in almost any way other than they have been.
Lord Wigoder:My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any of the pickets have been charged with being in possession of firearms?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is referring to a particular instance reported in the press this morning which may have been misleading. I understand that during the arrest of a man in the night for a breach of the peace a 45 automatic replica pistol fell to the ground. The man made no attempt to display or use it, and claimed that it was a collector's item which he had brought with him to sell.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can it be brought to the notice of those who make special transport arrangements for people to travel sometimes long distances for this kind of intimidating picketing that they themselves may be in breach of the criminal law if they do so knowingly?
Lord Elton:My Lords, I am very much aware of the position to which my noble friend rightly draws our attention. We are prepared so to do.
Lord Monson:My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the use of water cannon might not have saved many police, and, indeed, pickets, from injury?
Lord Elton: My Lords, operational decisions on the equipment to be used in any particular instance must rest with the Chief Constable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:My Lords, would not my noble friend the Minister agree that, really, the merits of this dispute are now of very little consequence, and that what is of consequence is the challenge to parliamentary democracy and the maintenance of the rule of law? Is this not a time when we should all, in all quarters of the House, whatever political persuasions we have, draw on our reserves of goodwill and common sense to stand up for the maintenance of law?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I entirely sympathise with what my noble friend has said. That is indeed what is at issue. This country is governed under a democracy, and democracy proceeds by persuasion and the views of the majority. Where a minority does not agree with the law it is not open to that minority, under a democracy, to overthrow the law by violence or by any other means except through the ballot box and by persuasive argument. I think the whole of your Lordships' House ought to endorse that on every possible occasion.
Lord Hunt:My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the use of the adjective "spontaneous" in connection with the presence of many hundreds, if not thousands, of pickets who assembled at Warrington is entirely specious and misleading, and would require redefinition of the meaning of the word in the English dictionary?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not actually know of any individual, though I am told there is one, who is prepared to regard these events as having been spontaneous. Certainly the Government do not.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with regard to the question of travel arrangements, it was suggested yesterday that perhaps a special train was being run, presumably by British Rail, to take pickets to Warrington. Did that in fact happen, and, if it did, is it going to be repeated?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand that it did not happen, and, therefore, whatever happened, it cannot be repeated.

Housing
3.54 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, returning to the housing debate which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Pitt, I should like first of all to thank him for introducing such a pressing and urgent Motion, and also to say how much I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. My noble friend's account of the conditions which exist and the actions taken by Government do not constitute a happy story. Unfortunately, there is no rosy tale to tell. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Byers, backed this extraordinarily well, and with great expedition.
It is true that past Labour Governments have not been blameless, but the extent of the problem, particularly in the public sector, was never as clear then as it is today. Even when, under Labour's housing cutbacks, housing starts were at their lowest figure in the late 1970s, capital expenditure on housing was nevertheless twice as much in real terms as it is today—certainly nowhere near the low figure of housing starts in 1981. When the Government talk about an increase in housing starts we have to remember that in recent years it is from a very grim and low base.
My noble friend has indicated some of the extent of the problem, particularly in London, and also the cost of restoration and repair. These costs can only increase. Meanwhile, millions of families in all sectors will be forced to continue to live in ever more intolerable and squalid conditions.
I think we must look at this in the context of the Government's whole housing policy. The Government's recent initiatives in housing expenditure did bloom in the autumn of last year. After three years of reduction in capital resources, local authorities and housing associations were suddenly encouraged to spend and spend. The devastating results of the English Houses Condition Survey referred to by my noble friend prompted the Government to increase dramatically their expenditure on improvement grants—an initiative carried forward into the current financial year. and a very welcome initiative it was.
In October 1982 local authorities were asked to submit capital projects for rapid approval in an attempt to shift the underspending which arose because of the receipts from council house sales. In addition, expenditure on the enterprising block by block improvement of our older housing stock, known now as "enveloping", was pioneered by the City of Birmingham. What has happened to these important initiatives? Local authorities and housing associations at this time responded as rapidly as they could. Indeed, housing association expenditure increased in 1983–84, and local authority expenditure rose to £2,400 million in 1982–83, reaching at least £2,700 million this year. Programmes of housing improvement and repair in the public sector expanded rapidly, and over £2,000 million is already committed for 1984–85. The estimates suggest that expenditure will again be at least £2,700 million this year.
708
Last month, approximately 500,000 people were involved at various stages in the improvement grants system, due to heavy Government advertising. As a result of this potent encouragement to spend, under-spending has been virtually eliminated for this year. The problem now, as I see it, is that it seems likely that, if the predicted level of expenditure is reached, the Government's own capital cash limits on housing will be breached. The last time that happened, in 1980–81, there was a Government freeze on further expenditure over a four-month period. Is that likely to happen again? Another freeze would be catastrophic. I should like to hear from the Minister when he replies whether that would be one of the alternatives if the cash limits are breached, which in fact I think they will have to be if any housing increase is to take place. Last month the Government sacrificed their sacred cow by announcing an end to the improvement grant increases and the money to pay for them. This means more job losses and again more housing deterioration.
In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a cut in housing expenditure of nearly £500 million. I would support, without repeating it, everything the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about this. We cannot afford to reduce housing expenditure. We cannot afford not to increase it, and the future is very grim unless there is going to be some increase. The extra £60 million for the enveloping schemes, which have been found to be the best way of dealing with the inner city areas, is being cut as well. The 1984–85 housing investment programme allocations to local authorities and the housing associations are about the same in cash terms, as I am sure the Minister is going to tell us. But for local authorities it is 45 per cent. less in real terms than they were receiving in 1979–80. That is really the important figure.
Clearly, resources are wholly insufficient to deal with the magnitude of the structural and the human housing problems with which we are faced today. Housing investment is not just a question of investing in housing—which is important enough—but an essential part of our economic recovery. The country is starved of investment for its infrastructure. We have heard the CBI, the well-known Group of Eight, which is comprised of private builders and developers, and others pressing these arguments for capital expenditure for many years now. There are 400,000 construction workers unemployed, and there are 4 million dwellings needing at least £2,500 or more spent on repairs to each of them. My noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead gave us the research figures that showed how it would energise the industry and reduce unemployment if more capital were put into housing. It costs at least £5,000 a year to keep someone who is unemployed, including the tax forgone. That seems an extraordinary way to run our society, spending billions of pounds to keep people out of work when we could be energising the whole of our economy by putting more money into the construction industry as a whole. That applies to the public and the private sectors.
The Government's stop-go-stop approach to older housing mirrors their lack of a forceful and just housing policy. Recent announcements in another place suggest that all our housing needs can be met by owner-occupation, with local authorities and housing

709
associations providing mainly for the disabled and the elderly. I need only take your Lordships' minds back to the Housing Act 1980, when many of us fought hard, from all sides of the House, to get an amendment which extended the exceptions to the right to buy and gave more flexibility for local authorities to build houses for the elderly to rent. In fact, what has happened? Where appeals have been made to the Secretary of State, 90 per cent. have been turned down. So the amount of accommodation for the elderly has shrunk and its place has been taken by houses to sell.
The responsibility of the house-owner or occupier is to ensure that the physical conditions in the dwellings are up to a reasonable standard, as laid down by the Government. At its face value, that makes common sense and sounds reasonable. That is all very well, but some people simply cannot cope. Study after study has shown that the worst physical conditions, in numerical terms, are now concentrated in the owner-occupied sector, where people forced into low income occupations have to suffer appalling housing conditions because they are unable to match the gap between the cost of repair and improvement and their own income levels. In the Oxford Times last week, instances were given of people who, relying on a survey, had purchased houses from the council—some years ago, it is true—who are now being faced with repair bills of £12,000 but who cannot get any help from the local authority because it does not have the money to help them. They are unable to find the money to repair their own houses.
It is true that the numbers on the waiting lists may be open to some question, with people not taking their names off the list or, occasionally, a doubling up. But the national level has risen in recent years from around 1.2 million households to 1.5 million. Whatever the arguments on the periphery are on whether that is a precise number or not, the fact remains that the waiting lists have increased.
As my noble friend pointed out, homelessness is so severe, particularly in London, that literally hundreds and hundreds of families are waiting in bed and breakfast accommodation queues for a local authority tenancy. That is another way in which one is literally throwing away money to no good end. We are keeping people in accommodation that is uncomfortable and unsuitable for families which is costing the local authorities a fortune but is not putting any permanent investment into housing stock. It also means that fewer people can be taken off the housing list because the authorities must first deal with the homeless.
The Government's policies are socially divisive. My noble friend referred to the tax relief on mortgages being raised to £30,000. At the same time, the Minister for Housing makes statements to the Housing Consultative Council suggesting that subsidies to the local authority sector should gradually be eliminated.
We are developing a housing "two nations" for ourselves. One nation is represented by the well-housed owner-occupier, able to afford repairs to his or her home. The other is the "welfare" sector of the local authority tenants, who are becoming further concentrated in the least attractive accommodation as the best estates are sold under the right to buy and as the public sector housing diminishes and deteriorates.
710
Of course, where it is possible and the stock of housing is available, people should have the right to buy their own homes, but this means that there should be a quid pro quo and authorities should have the opportunity and the resources to build sufficient houses to rent and to repair those that they have before they fall into such decay that they need to be demolished instead of being left to stand as unlivable-in eyesores. I believe that there is action which can be taken rapidly to improve the condition of our older housing and those houses constructed in a defective manner. First, there should be a thorough review by the Government of repairs needed for older housing. I should like to have confirmation from the Minister that there will still be a house condition survey in 1986 which will be carried out in accordance with the practice of the past 15 years.
A reinstatement of the improvement grant initiative until the end of 1984–85 will make a tremendous difference to this problem at the comparatively low figure of £250 million. The further funding of the block-by-block envelope scheme for terraced houses should be increased, not cut, with a cash limit of even, say, £100 million, because that is the only policy which has been shown to be really effective in improving particular types of inner city area. The Building Research Establishment should be commissioned as a matter of urgency to undertake a thorough assessment of all the problems associated with house-building defects, which we are hearing about almost week after week in various statements.
In my view, we need to move away from a tenure-based ideological approach to the basic and previously agreed position that everyone has a right to a home of an acceptable standard, regardless of income. In other words, back to Beveridge! We need policies to match the real needs of people living in older property. To meet those requirements, a proper level of resources for repair and new building is essential for both public and private sectors. We cannot get round that basic point. The aim should be, and must be, what the Labour Party has always stood for: the basic right to a decent home for everyone.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, the statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has brought forward are very alarming and we must all be aware of the great personal distress which follows on the tail of such statistics. The suggestions which I make to your Lordships this afternoon have already been lightly touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, and if they are in some detail, that is perhaps because this is not an easy subject on which to make a non-controversial speech.
If we are to remedy the situation to which the noble Lord referred, we must surely have replacement housing available to accommodate those displaced by the need to refurbish or redevelop substandard accommodation. In this context, I draw the attention of your Lordships to the existing schemes, to which again the noble Lord has referred, operated by the Abbey National Building Society, by the Town and Country Building Society and perhaps by others. As a director of the Town and Country Building Society, I must, of course, declare an interest.

711
These schemes are operated on parallel lines. To date, that of the Abbey National has been directed almost exclusively towards local authorities and public bodies, whereas our own operations have so far been with industrial companies. Both schemes require the involvement of a housing association outside the Housing Corporation. Briefly, the freeholders in our present involvement—Blue Circle Industries—have the property valued at open market values. They make a project management and development agreement with a housing association and pay the planning application costs. The housing association carries out the feasibility study and the negotiations with the planners and the building society, bank or other financial institution. In this context, the National Westminster Bank has already expressed interest in the schemes. The financial institution will lend up to 80 per cent. of the projected development cost, with the property value hopefully providing the remaining 20 per cent. The property must then be pledged to the lender. The loan is repaid from the sale of the houses and the freeholder, for the property, at an agreed figure per house afterwards.
These schemes have many advantages. They require no public money. Planners seem to like dealing with housing associations. A housing association is a non-profit-making body and therefore tends to produce low-cost housing. No money is laid out in advance, other than the planning application and study costs, until all the planning approvals are through and the contractor chosen and on site. The money can then be drawn down, but the bulk of it can be returned to the money market to help defray interest charges until required for stage payments. Interest charges are therefore kept to a minimum. There has been no overbidding by a developer and therefore there is not the pressure on the planners to agree to something that they do not want in a sensitive inner city area. It avoids the problems of planning refusal to a purchaser and the consequent freezing of the land until circumstances change.
These schemes often release redundant and difficult sites that would otherwise lie idle. The disadvantage is that the freeholder may not obtain quite so much for his property as he would at auction or by tender. The snag is the difficulty of persuading local authorities to release their land or substandard property instead of hoping that one day they will be able to develop it themselves.
During the debates on the Agricultural Holdings Bill many noble Lords emphasised that we could not manufacture more land. It is very important, therefore, that we make the best use of that which we have and most particularly in the urban areas. These schemes can help us to redevelop within our urban boundaries and, hopefully, relieve the pressure on greenfield sites. At present we have two sites under construction, one in discussion with the planners and four more in discussion with Blue Circle and another public company. The Abbey National has seven sites in various stages of development. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, made special reference to London. I am sure he would he interested to know that three of those sites are in Tower Hamlets, Bermondsey and Fulham. In these schemes of the Abbey National,
712
approximately 30 per cent. of the houses built go to rental accommodation.
We are also well aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, of the contribution which the construction industry makes through its domino effect on other industries. It adds to the provision of employment and creates extensive extra work in many factories of diverse nature. I suggest that by greater use of schemes such as those I have described we could increase our housing stock, refurbish and replace substandard housing and provide more houses for rent at a reasonable cost.
Three hundred and seven years ago my ancestor was tried in your Lordships' House for manslaughter. I should not for one moment suggest that making one's maiden speech is an equivalent situation or ordeal. On that previous occasion your Lordships' predecessors acquitted my forebear. From what I know of it, I believe that the verdict was somewhat generous. I hope that this afternoon I have not strained your Lordships' indulgence to the point where your verdict may not be a similar one.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I feel particularly privileged to have the honour of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on his maiden speech. Not only was it informative and wise, but it had that little touch of wit at the end which was quite delightful. The noble Lord has certainly acquitted himself very well indeed this afternoon. I am sure we all hope that we shall hear him many more times in this House.
I was also delighted that the noble Lord drew attention to the part that the building societies and housing associations are playing, particularly in the rehabilitation of our housing stock. I use the word "stock". It is not, I think, a good word. In today's debate we have necessarily heard a lot of figures, but we must never forget that this afternoon we are talking about a human problem involving homes and people. As the noble Lord said, we are talking about people who suffer a lot of misery because of their wretched housing. I think that "misery" was the word that the noble Lord used.
Many of your Lordships must have seen this misery while working on housing matters and among people. Many of us have seen leaking roofs with pails and pans having to be placed on the bedroom floor; or a room may be so small that the bed cannot be moved out of the way and a pan has to be placed on the bed at night under the leaking roof. Rotten window frames let in rain and cold. We are all concerned about insulation and keeping places warm, but there is no possible chance to keep a house warm where wind comes in through the windows and ill-fitting doors.
Some houses have no constant hot water. I cannot think how a woman can bring up a family without constant hot water. It is an absolute misery. There is no other word to use. When there is really bad housing, I cannot see how there can be harmony in the home. What is a home without harmony? This is what we are talking about: people and people's lives. We must have the figures. but we also must think of the individual family in the house and relate what we are saying to their needs.

713
I am exceedingly keen—if I may use that word in this House—on improvement grants. They are being used to do a very good job indeed, but progress is too slow. An enormous number of houses need to be dealt with. According to the last figures I saw, only 100,000 had been dealt with; but something is better than nothing. However, as I say, progress is much too slow.
A great number of councils have been, and are, making an enormous drive on the improvement grant front. They have set up teams of workers to go from house to house in an area, canvassing the grants, and giving every possible service, such as free architectural advice on how to plan the improvement. The teams work with building societies, which are also more than helpful. Now we have a situation where the Government are to curtail and cut the grants. When the need is so very great, that is an unthinkable thing for a Government to do. The help provided by improvement grants to owners, landlords and tenants is exceedingly great. I just pray that the Government will have another think on the improvement grant front.
If I may, I should like to speak for a few moments about a particular city in this country of ours, the city of Leeds, which I recently visited in my capacity as a member of the board of a housing association. I was—to put it mildly—horrified at what I saw going on. Leeds still has a tremendous number of back-to-back houses still remaining. They tell me there are approximately 20,000. Immediately after the war I thought this country was going to make a great drive at getting rid of the back-to-back houses. I do not know what the position is in other cities, but in Leeds there are 20,000 such houses still remaining and 16,000 of them need substantial repair and improvement. These to me are houses that ought to be demolished. This is what worries me. They are back-to-back; they have no yard and nothing outside; one house backs on to another house and they face the pavement front on. You cannot put a bicycle outside, for, as I have said, there is no yard or anything. Where does a woman dry her washing? There is this problem in Leeds. I get all this information from my housing association. I think the houses ought to be pulled down as fast as possible.
What are we doing? We are spending public money on these particular houses. A thousand of them still lack one or more of the basic amenities and even in these days between 200 and 300 still have an outside WC. Not having a yard, as I have said, it is an outside WC situated down the road in a little row shared with other people: a privy. But I am told not so privy as the WCs in disrepair. This is a scandal and must not be allowed to go on. These houses, as I said earlier, must be demolished.
Now to come to what is being done as a result of improvement grants. There are two exercises: there are improvement grants for houses for rent, and improvement grants for houses for sale. They come under different regulations. I should like to inform your Lordships, as briefly as I am able to, how they work. At current levels, to buy and improve a back-to-back house in Leeds costs, I am told, approximately between £18,000 and £20,000. This section is for renting. The taxpayer in this case makes a grant of about £16,000.
714
My query for this kind of house is: is it sensible housekeeping for the nation to he spending £16,000 to improve these houses? I am told that the local authority does not have enough money in its HIPs to undertake the clearance which it must to rehouse, rebuild and rehouse again in the rebuilt houses; turning the site over, I presume, would be the sensible thing to do. They just cannot do that; there is not enough money. To spend £16,000 on a house is a lot of money for something which is going to last, I hope, for just a few years.
To turn to the rehabilitation of houses for sale, I know full well that the particular position I am going to describe does not apply just to Leeds. I have seen it, read about it and had to try to deal with it in other areas of the country. It is a financial problem. A grant for rehabilitation for sale is a different situation.
Let us go back to the Leeds position. The purchase price is much the same as houses for rent. When the houses are for sale, there is a grant of £7,500 maximum: so to buy a house costs £15,000, but the improvement grant is limited to £7,500. As I have said, a house sells for between £18,000 and £20,000. But the rehabilitated house sells for only £15,000, so one can only repair it to a very much lower standard. That is what I am getting at.
I went to see one such house where I am convinced that it had been improved as well as was humanly possible. You have a front door and you open it and it goes straight into the living room; there is no lobby to keep the draught out, and there is not a very clement climate in Leeds. The stairs are at the back of the living room; there is no door and the draught goes straight up the stairs. There is a bathroom and one bedroom on the first floor and just a bedroom and a landing on the next floor. There is nowhere for a bicycle; there is nowhere for a pram. There was not enough money to build a porch on the house. When the houses were selling for a little less perhaps 18 months or so ago, you could put a porch on. Now you cannot do so. It is absurd to be doing this work and selling the property as a basically bare product: a back-to-back house.
We have done the best we can with the money that we are allowed, and I ask the Government to have a look at this problem and see whether the grant can be increased or some other arrangement made. I am told we are not even allowed to have swings and roundabouts: possibly saving on one house and using the saving on another house; each house has to stand on its own. Is it not really quite absurd? I hope the Government will look at the situation. I am sorry to have dwelt on a specific case but it is an illustration of the kind of thing which is going on and which really does need looking at.
Industrialised housing is really hated—there is not any other word to use. Tenants just will not live in them; some of them cannot bear it. I would say that if it can be rescued some of it might be rescued; but a basic tenet there is to consult with the tenants and convince them that you mean you are consulting; that you mean you are listening to what they say, will take notice of it, and will act on it. Some of the industrialised housing will have to be pulled down; there is no other answer. I suggest to the Government that in those cases they might consider writing off the debt.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on his maiden speech, which I found particularly interesting. I should like to thank Lord Pitt for bringing this subject to us for debate today. I listened carefully to what he said and I noticed that his view was that unsuitable properties should be cleared as rapidly as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, held this same view. I have a slight reservation on that in that I was a candidate in Blackburn where I saw those acres of desolation where all the properties had been cleared and nothing was replacing them. They were properties that subsequently were found to be houses which could have been rehabilitated. People could have had good homes; but instead the houses had gone and nothing more could be done. I urge caution in that respect.
I was also rather disturbed when the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, talked about mortgage tax relief and stated that he would not go so far as to abolish it, but possibly to reform it, or transfer the funds somewhere else. I consider that quite enough to frighten anyone trying to meet mortgage payments today. Many people have sufficient trouble, and I hope that the Government will assure us that there will be no change in mortgage tax relief. I am all for the present system.
I support absolutely the view of the noble Lord, and that of the noble Lord. Lord Cornwallis, that more liaison between the building societies and local authorities is desirable. In the City of Westminster the Abbey National is offering to take over all the mortgages of local authority people who are buying their accommodation. This is freeing funds that can then be put back into the housing account. One small difficulty is that while, when the money is freed, the amount received is gross and the capital receipts from sales of property are, for measuring purposes, taken by the Department of the Environment as gross, credit is allowed only in net terms. The benefit, in terms of re-using the money, is therefore not as great as it could be.
Westminster City Council was one authority selected by the Audit Commission of the Department of the Environment for an independent private audit in terms of a value-for-money audit of its housing account. The conclusions were most interesting. One of the most important conclusions was that rather than carry out repairs piecemeal and as required, which is current practice, it is far more economic and satisfactory to have a rolling programme of repairs and to preplan them. That means, for example, that all window frames are repaired at a certain time when it is known that the frames are about to reach the end of their useful life. This is less expensive and proves to be better value for money. Unfortunately, the council is caught in the situation of not having the necessary capital to implement these money-saving schemes. There are difficulties, but I believe that the council will put these ideas into action as soon as possible. Even now, the council is doing its best.
There was a most interesting report on the Mozart Street estate, in Paddington, which was a prizewinning scheme about 10 years ago, but which now has great problems. It has become one of those estates where no one wants to live, though structurally the buildings are quite impressive. The council has plans
716
to spend £400,000 on improvements. The design of tower block estates is terribly important. On the Mozart Street estate, it is now considered that the fact that it was built as a co-ordinated whole, with elevated walkways and quick routes from one block to another, is one of the great problems. Muggers and vandals can make their get-away very quickly. People feel vulnerable and unprotected.
I consider that the security aspect is most important in the structure of a building. People speak about tower blocks as disasters. There has been mention of industrial building. I feel strongly about personal security for people living in private homes, or in council accommodation. If people are living in an atmosphere that they find hostile and in which they feel themselves to be constantly under threat from those around them, it is a great risk and a great worry. It can be as great a disturbance to people's lives as is the physical deterioration of the building.
I notice that in its scheme for the Mozart Street estate, Westminster Council plans to concentrate on 50 flats in a pilot scheme, spending about £200 on each flat to provide it with a door entryphone. I consider that door entryphones have only limited use. Those who have canvassed at the time of elections will know, I am sure, that if you ring all the buttons, someone will always let you in. A door entryphone is therefore only as good as the weakest link on the end of the phone. Much greater personal security is achieved by stronger front doors. Security doors are to be provided. Glass panels beside doors, or within doors, are to be removed, and the doors strengthened.
A similar pilot scheme is being carried out by the Greater London Council, which has selected 1,500 properties for the purpose. It actually selected 1,650, but, surprisingly, there are a number of people who refuse to have done any kind of work to improve their property. The cost will be £180,000; that is, £120 per dwelling.
It is believed that much greater personal security will be achieved simply by strengthening the panels of the front door. Often, people return home to find that, following a break-in, the locks on the door are completely intact but the door structure itself is completely destroyed. It is therefore believed that the answer is to make stronger the front door, together with window locks. This is to be done.
The home security market is a growing market. It is desirable, I believe, to produce schemes that can be adopted quickly and cheaply and that have a potentially wide application. Once the measures that I have described are adopted—I am not talking about the entryphone, which is vulnerable to vandalism or misuse—they do not require any maintenance and attention, and the tenant does not have to rely on other users. They remain value for money for a long time.
I should like briefly to refer to two other matters. One of these is the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which throws great and unfair responsibility upon some boroughs. I recall my time serving on the London Boroughs Association, when Hounslow constantly complained because it received all the homeless arriving at Heathrow Airport. A similar problem was faced by Westminster City Council and, I think, most of the central London councils. Last

717
year, Westminster had 1,400 vacancies to offer. Of those, 500 went to people covered by homelessness provisions. Only one-third of the 500 had any real claim on Westminster. This meant that the remaining two-thirds were jumping the queue over people who had spent many years on the waiting list.
I know that representations have often been made to the department to consider some change. The present situation in regard to homelessness is unfair. It should be a pooled responsibility, rather than the responsibility of the individual borough where people happen to arrive. Those who have a direct claim on the borough should be treated in a different manner.
Another problem that has made many people's lives a misery is that of condensation. As at one stage a district housing chairman for the Greater London Council, I have visited housing estates, as, I am sure, has the noble Baroness, Lady Denington. She will have seen conditions just as bad as those that I have witnessed. On the Aveley estate, walls were green, mould was growing, and liquid was dripping. Wedding dresses were spoiled. It was hard to believe that things could be so bad where industrial building systems had been used.
Much study has now been carried out into condensation problems. I recognise that dry lining—which is being carried out by Westminster City Council—is helping. I am aware also that Westminster City Council is applying its mind to using available funds to the best advantage. One proposal is to employ individual specialist consultants in various subjects. That means that the council has to meet the bill only once. It uses the service, it receives the report and it can then implement it.
For example, it has called in energy consultants in the form of the National Industry Fuel Efficiency Service, who have looked at a large estate and have found that it is totally uneconomic to have one vast centralised heating system. It is most wasteful. Indeed, I know many people living on the Lisson Green estate who cannot stand the heat; they have to keep opening the windows. What could be more wasteful than that? The recommendation is to change over to smaller individual boilers and to allow people to control the quantity of heat that they require. There is the one exception—which I thoroughly support—of the aged persons' dwellings, where they cannot change over the heating system because many old people worry about heating bills and will turn the heating off if they can.
However, the condensation problem is a combination of heat suddenly hitting cold surfaces and a lack of ventilation. After all, the building regulations on ventilation are rather stupid because they insist on all these air bricks, and the first thing people do when they move into a flat is to cover up the airbricks with sheets of that self-adhesive plastic, because one person's ventilation is another person's draught. As a result, the condensation problems grow ever greater.
Great strides have been made in the way in which local authorities have been applying their minds to improvements, but as time is running short I do not intend to go into it any more. However, one interesting fact is that on the Mozart Street estate £86 per flat per annum is the cost of vandalism to the common parts. That estate comprises 740 flats, and that vandalism
718
represents a loss of £63,640 in a year. That is money which could very well be spent on improving the housing there; money that would be very welcome in the general housing account of that authority. If that is happening on that estate, I am sure that the same thing is occurring in many other places.
I cannot conclude without mentioning the private landlord. It is a great shame that the Rent Act 1974 has pretty well abolished the private landlord and has made it almost impossible for people to let private accommodation. This is why so much has been thrown onto the housing associations and the local authorities. I would also comment that the housing associations receive much better finance from the Government than do the local authorities. The housing associations receive a direct grant, whereas the local authorities do not receive a Government grant. They have to finance the housing themselves. It is just permitted expenditure; and when the allowance is made at the end it is simply an allowance on the interest that they have paid. Therefore, it is not as good.
However, for many years the private landlord has been pilloried, and now all housing is falling into the same state of disrepair because of this problem. You must have a certain income to be able to afford to carry out the repairs, whether the property is privately-owned or local authority-owned.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, first may I join the previous two speakers—my noble friend Lady Denington and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—in their congratulations, and compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on his very informative maiden speech. I found it very interesting. The noble Lord certainly has specialised knowledge of housing associations and building societies, on which I am sure we shall hear from him again in this Chamber.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Pitt for selecting housing as the subject for this Short Debate, for the way in which he delivered his speech and for the mass of statistics that were contained in it, which certainly covered housing in its widest spectrum.
In the time at my disposal I propose to address my remarks to industrialised and semi-industrialised building. Housing is, of course, probably the most important requirement of any family if a decent quality of life is to be sustained. I address my remarks to a feature of housing which I believe has emerged as the most serious and urgent housing problem requiring our attention. I am referring to the industrialised and semi-industrialised housing, large stocks of which a considerable number of local authorities have in their housing pools.
Earlier this year, in another place, I had a debate on this subject during the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. In that debate I referred to the fact that the faults which were already showing in these systems (most of them having been built since 1960) were but the tip of an iceberg which was starting to surface with frightening speed.
As a nation we have to decide what is to be done about this problem and who is to bear the financial

719
responsibility. Should the responsibility be borne by the builders and designers of the dwellings, or should it be borne by the Government? I place no particular blame on the present Government or the previous one, but I blame their predecessors, of both major political parties, who were responsible for encouraging, sponsoring and, in some cases, promoting these systems. At the time there was considerable opposition from local authorities concerning the use of these systems, but by means of financial arm-twisting and other coercive measures successive Governments imposed their wills, with the subsequent disastrous results, including the extremely serious financial situations which some of these local authorities now face.
During the time that I have left I want to illustrate some of these. The main factor in creating the position in which we now find ourselves was the policy of successive Governments, which, to accelerate the house-building programme, turned to system-built houses to top up the then target of 300,000 houses per year and to increase it to 400,000. Although that target was never reached, a considerable number of these properties were built annually. Despite strong objections on a wide scale from local authority representatives, local authorities were cajoled and induced by means of the subsidy system into adopting these forms of building, with the resultant problems. As I have said, I was prominent in local government at that time and I was at the forefront of that opposition, but unfortunately and tragically we lost the argument.
The other factor that was used to persuade people to use these systems was that it would be cheaper to build using such systems than to use traditional methods, and it would be faster. Nobody ever proved that it was faster if one took into account the factory time required and the site preparation before the building was constructed. However, the financial outcome was that, taken on a national average, the industrialised house was 20 per cent. dearer than its traditional counterpart. Therefore, not only did local authorities receive a bad deal financially, but they were a saddled, in aesthetic terms, with monstrosities of the worst kind.
I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, refer to Leeds in her speech. However, Leeds is not all bad. It has its share of bad properties and it has its share of old properties that remain. But basically the area that I represented in Leeds has very few back-to-backs and a lot of good council housing. If one wants to look at the worst aspects of housing in Leeds, one should look at a notorious block of flats (which is similar to the one in London to which the noble Baroness referred) which has deck access with linked walkways. It is completely socially unacceptable, has been built less than 15 years and has now actually been declared to be in a dangerous condition. That is the type of property about which I am particularly concerned.
I welcome the financial assistance which the Government are making available to people who have bought houses from their local authorities which were built by prefabricated means. But why stop there? Is it not fair and equitable that this assistance should be extended to local authorities, so that they can carry out
720
their obligations to tenants in similar accommodation? In my debate in another place some months ago I mentioned that the figure of £3 billion was required to deal with this problem. But the AMA have since published a report indicating that a conservative figure ("conservative" with a small "c") is £5 billion, and not £3 billion. That is the dimension of the financial problem that they are facing.
I was surprised at the unhelpful answer given by the Minister in this Chamber when I raised the question with him on Monday last. He reiterated the Government's now famous fallback position on housing, that more finance would be available if more council houses were sold. I detect that the Government have only two policies: one is of improvement because they have nearly killed building altogether, and the other is the sale of council houses. It is almost like going to see a doctor who prescribes aspirin for every major illness you get, which is about as effective as the Government's policy will be on housing.
Let me issue a warning to people buying this type of house. I do not want to confuse the issue: I am talking now about houses built before 1960. They are mainly prefabricated, slab-concrete houses, We hear from the Conservative Govenment about being a property-owning democracy. and that people are being allowed to purchase these council houses. I can tell your Lordships that people who are buying these nontraditional houses are buying an asset which they will never be able to realise.
I can quote a copperbottomed case in Leeds that came to my notice. A family bought one of these houses, known as a Smith-type house—houses which have not, as yet, been found defective; and I say "as yet". They bought it 16 years ago, at full discount. The house is a first-class house. I went round to see it. The lady concerned put the house on the market two years ago at £2,000 less than the valuation recommended by her estate agent. There has not been one offer in two years. I suspect that the Government, in encouraging people to buy council houses at that time, were landing them with a so-called benefit on which they will never he able to realise and of which they will themselves be the last tenants, or certainly the ones who will die in them. That is one part of that particular situation.
Let me now turn to the financial consequences involved for the local authorities concerned with the initial problem about which I spoke in my speech—the industrialised and semi-industrialised buildings. I quoted a development in Leeds built 14 years ago which has had considerable sums of money spent on it in the meanwhile. The local authority took the decision to spend sums of money to try to put the property in a safe condition, more socially acceptable, and so that they could keep it in the housing stock. But they were throwing hundreds of thousands of pounds of good money after bad. Therefore, the local authority took the decision, for that and a variety of other reasons, to demolish the property and rehouse the tenants.
The financial outcome is that the demolition of this property, because of the 45-year outstanding loan repayment period and other related costs, will, it is calculated, put 22p a week on every council house rent in Leeds for the next 40 years. Almost every other major local authority has considerable numbers of

721
these properties in its housing stock. Certainly Manchester, with the now notorious Bison development, has at least three times as many as Leeds and has, I understand, taken the decision to disgorge them from their stock, with the resultant inevitable financial consequences. What Leeds and Manchester have had to do other local authorities—large cities, London boroughs—will have to take decisions about in the immediate future.
The problem is not what to do with the stocks of housing, in my opinion, but when. It is my submission that they have no future in our housing stock and should be demolished as a priority. Bearing in mind the responsibility that previous Governments have in this matter, the cost of this ought to be borne by central Government.
My Lords, in the post-war years the architects, planners and builders of this country had a wonderful opportunity to build a new Britain. It must be said that in this facet of local authority housing they have failed abysmally, and the scars will remain for the foreseeable future. In my opinion it would be monstrously unjust to expect other council house tenants, both now and in the future, to pay for these mistakes.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches I too should like to offer our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on his excellent maiden speech this afternoon. We too look forward to hearing him taking part in other debates on this and other subjects. I should also like to express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for giving us this opportunity to talk about housing this afternoon. He is right to call attention to the condition of post-war housing. However, I am equally, if not more, concerned about the pre-1914 and the inter-war housing stocks which are still with us.
After the 1960s, the industrial systems of building became commonplace. Local government, with financial assistance from central Government, went overboard for numbers of housing units rather than quality of the building. They boosted the numbers by building more and more flats rather than houses in our great conurbations. With hindsight, past Governments, and city and borough councillors and architects, must accept some of the blame and some of the responsibility for rushing into using untried and untested systems of building.
In Peterborough, where I was a board member of the Development Corporation in its early days, we did not wish to rush into building by industrial means. We decided deliberately as a board not to go in for high rise building of flats but to build more and more houses with gardens. We wanted our buildings to last, and we looked for tried and tested building methods, for easy maintenance, and for houses built in pleasant surroundings each with its own garden.
We, as a board, attached some importance to what we were creating, and all our rented accommodation was built with a view to long-term saleability. We have had no real building problems, and our houses are now selling fast to satisfied buyers, unlike in a neighbouring new town, Corby, which went in for a lot of industri-
722
alised building which is now being wound up and handed over and has something over 2,000 houses in need of considerable repair.
As I said earlier, I am concerned about the severe problems caused by the number of pre-1914 houses still in use, the state of that stock, and its even more rapid deterioration. Also, much of the inter-war housing is now occupied by elderly tenants and owners, many of them on low, fixed incomes and unable to maintain their accommodation properly or to improve it. Reference has been made to the English housing survey of 1981, and the result is certainly frightening. More than two-fifths of the unfit dwellings in 1981 were owner-occupied, and one-third of them were privately rented accommodation.
The percentage of all the dwellings found unfit that had been built between the wars increased from 3 per cent. in 1971 to over 10 per cent. in1981. Fortunately, significantly fewer homes, one in 20, now lack basic amenities, but the number of unfit dwellings, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has said, remains broadly constant between 1.1 million and 1.2 million. But disrepair is on the increase, and some 200,000 more houses than in 1976 now need repairs costing over £7,000. If you acknowledge disrepair costing over £2,500 instead of £7,000 to put it right, then 3.9 million dwellings are now in disrepair, and that is something like 22 per cent. of our total housing stock. I accept that figures can be manipulated, but, if you take the number of dwellings in need of repair just to make them wind and weather-proof, then you are talking about something like 5 million dwellings.
It is now generally accepted in housing fields that nearly one quarter of our housing stock is unsatisfactory, with the older housing stock being worn out faster than it is being replaced. Experts believe that at the present rate of improvement, it will take 50 years just to deal with the very worst. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was talking about centuries to solve the problem. We should remember that nearly one-third of all the houses now standing were built before 1914, many of them to a much lower standard than we expect today. Yet the housing improvement grant is to be cut back to 75 per cent.
Maybe, just maybe, there is sound reasoning behind that, but can the Minister tell us when he replies what kind of take-up there was at 90 per cent. improvement grant, and did the higher rate offered encourage older and needier persons to apply for the grant to improve their accommodation?
The 1981 survey goes to some length to compare owner occupied housing with the private rented sector. But, as a New Society article pointed out recently, if one compared the owner occupied and public rented stock one would find that 51 per cent. of the homes in serious disrepair; 43 per cent. of unfit properties and 37 per cent. of those lacking basic amenities are owner occupied, while the figure for the public sector is 5 per cent. in serious disrepair, 9 per cent. unfit and 15.7 per cent. lacking basic amenities.
These figures have to be treated with caution, and they reflect the dominant position of home ownership. But, one could also use them to argue that owner occupation is not necessarily the universal panacea that this Government believe nor is the record of public housing as bad as is sometimes represented.

723
Most of us at some time in our political life have waxed rhetorical about housing—about the provision of sufficient accommodation, about getting rid of bad housing and housing conditions, about maximising the choice of housing and about getting value for money. However, the present housing construction programme is quite inadequate for our present needs. The Government's policy is to increase owner occupation. On these Benches we are in favour of home ownership, but the low start home buying schemes of shared ownership are having only a marginal effect. Home ownership is not being encouraged by a more plentiful supply of housing, but by selling off council houses by using the carrot of high discounts and the stick of higher rents. The latest CIPFA statistics show that the 24 per cent. increase in capital spending went more to servicing debt than to building houses. Because of the cuts in local authority budgets and the sale of council houses. public renting has become less available, less attractive and much more expensive.
Why can we not have all-party agreement on the minimum number of houses which need to be rebuilt or improved to keep pace with new demand and the rate at which existing buildings are becoming substandard? It is time to give some stability to house-building construction. We need to find a means of directing our national resources—not only money, but people, materials and land—towards renewing and preventing deterioration of our housing stocks.
Also, we need a reform in housing finance. We need to take a more neutral attitude towards both renters and owners. We need a tax system that will encourage better maintenance and rate of occupation of our housing stock. Above all, we need continuity of programmes and sensible decisions gained through the consensus of all concerned. Anyone closely involved in housing knows that housing finance is a mess. I have no doubt that what we really need is an expert committee to consider housing finance as a whole, to produce a report and strategic and detailed practicable proposals.
I, too, am interested in the growing attention of building societies to rented housing. I hope that they will be given every encouragement as financial institutions to work with housing associations to develop and manage rented housing to complement the traditional public sector housing and also to continue to expand on the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. It may require changes in subsidies, but I believe that it could be a positive way to develop and improve our housing. Money alone will not solve the problem, but I urge the Government to review the financing of housing improvement and modernisation. They should consider how best to use whatever money is available to get the best possible return for the nation in terms of houses which can be saved and given a much longer life. It is a top priority, and it ought to be a top priority as the housing survey has shown us.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on his speech this afternoon. A new angle and different point
724
of view was expressed, and we look forward to further contributions from the noble Lord. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, for giving us the opportunity to discuss various angles on housing. I shall concentrate on the problem to which he drew our attention; that is, the discovery of defects in council property built within the last 20 years, or less. I shall concentrate mainly on those problems.
As my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has mentioned, in so many instances the defects will mean demolition of properties. I want to emphasise, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that these are not condensation problems. They are serious defects, where concrete is crumbling, and the safety of the properties must be considered.
I can remember so vividly that when I was chairman of Birmingham Housing Committee we built so many system-built properties. My housing officials used to go round following grumbles from tenants about water penetration. On many occasions I said, "Do not tell the tenants that it is condensation because they keep the kettle boiling and do not make the pot of tea quickly enough, or that they are boiling potatoes too fast, so that the steam is not going out of the property".
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I shall not give way to the noble Baroness. I have 14 minutes, the same as she had. I am not giving way.
In the past local authorities have put the blame on Governments for not safeguarding building standards. The present Government are also being criticised by local authorities for not being too helpful towards meeting the cost of remedying faults and defects. I should like to emphasise what my noble friend Lady Denington said. What is of paramount importance is that in some cases tenants are compelled to live in deplorable housing conditions in properties that were built less than 20 years. Great misery is caused. I hope that with his knowledge of medicine, my noble friend Lord Pitt will acknowledge that such conditions can cause ill health among young children. There is damp, and mildew on walls. Recently, when I was in the north of the country researching inner cities. I saw in blocks of flats, flooding that was an inch and a half deep in every room. The local authority is in the strange situation that it cannot find the cause of the faults in order to remedy them.
All along the line the tenant is being asked to pay increased rents when, in many cases if we were owner-occupiers we would say that no more mortgage money would be paid until the contractor had made good the faults. Therefore, many of these tenants live in a nightmare, with carpets rotting and wallpaper peeling off the walls, as my noble friend Lady Denington (whose great knowledge of housing we all admire) elicited this afternoon.
The tenant is faced with little help initially from the local authority because the local authority recognises that there are major defects in the non-traditional types of dwellings, defects in design and construction, and therefore they are not easy problems for the local authorities to solve. Not only that, but because of the massive bills that will have to be paid the local authority is contesting all along the line with the contractor as

725
to who is going to help to make some of the payments. There, with all this going on, one has the tenant almost in despair at the endless delays while inspection after inspection takes place until the building work to remedy the defects is commenced.
In an answer in your Lordships' House to my noble friend Lord Dean, the Minister said that these defects are not known. On reading that reply, all that I can say is that the noble Lord the Minister does not know much about what is going on inside local authorities. I can say to him that near to where I live the tower blocks are being completely renovated on the outside, and scaffolding has been up on two blocks of flats for more than 12 months.
I should like to say this afternoon that it might well be a valid exercise for those architects, those designers, those planners and those building contractors, who made handsome profits, to visit some of the dream houses that they were supposed to be providing for those less well off in the community. Let them face the wrath of the tenants! In those areas, that anger is at present vented upon the councillors, who are constantly being asked the question, "What are you going to do about it?" The fault is not theirs; the fault lies mainly with the contractors.
As my noble friend Lord Dean has said, during the 1950s circular after circular was issued by the department extolling the use of non-traditional methods of house-building. Local authorities were given capital grants if costs were greater for non-traditional than for traditional, and authorities could also apply for additional allocation if they agreed to build by new methods. As has been said already, local authorities were not entirely convinced of system building—something which they had never used before. I know that local authorities are much maligned by some poeple, but more often than not they are very conservative (with a small "c") when it comes to trying anything very new. During these periods they were perhaps a little hesitantabout them, but they had long waiting lists. I can remember from when I was a chairman of the local authority in Birmingham that with 30,000 to 35,000 families waiting for houses one is concerned. The proof that was given to us was that these would take half the time to build. So, with the full support of the Government, local authorities ventured on what has proved to be a very costly exercise.
Furthermore, not only have we a costly exercise but the Minister has only recently asked all local authorities to make a check on their Bison concrete housing. We all know about Bison properties because they were shown on one of the television networks only recently. The Government themselves have decided that grants need to be paid to Airey houses. I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply why grants of 100 per cent. towards the cost of reimbursing owners of Airey houses should be given for repairs that are carried out at their expense, when there is no extra allocation for local authorities within their house improvement programme for dealing with their own tenants who are living in identical properties. My noble friend Lady Birk gave examples of how the improvement grants are operating. She has given us her knowledge of the worst action that we can expect to take place with the cutback of improvement grants. But we are to expect
726
shortly the gloomy views regarding house improvement programmes.
At present, local authorities are entitled to reinvest into house improvements half the capital they earn from the sale of houses. It is rumoured—I merely say that it is a rumour, and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will counter that rumour—that this half is going to be reduced to one-quarter. With sales of council property already flagging, if this percentage is reduced there is quite obviously less available for major schemes of repair, not only on system building but on the pre-war stock, which is now 50 years old. What is required from the Government, in my view, is a declared intention that they will consider amendment to house improvement allocations to take account of the problems of each local authority with this type of building.
It is not only the building costs with which local authorities are faced; it is the remedial work. But in some instances it means rehousing people, it means loss of rents and, as has been said previously, in some cases it means the complete writing off of the 30-year loan charges which are outstanding. We must all be concerned at the large amount of public money that will need to be spent on system building defects; and lessons have to be learned. The Government have a responsibility to make quite sure that our housing stock does not deteriorate further; because, if it does, the future will bring another housing crisis and the need again for a sudden increase in building programmes, possibly with the same disastrous results as we are discussing this afternoon.
What is necessary are three-year housing programmes so that local authorities can plan continually. It is folly to expect them to plan on an annual basis. The building industry itself and its component suppliers are faced with heavier financial commitments on the stop-go finance of 12 months' planning. What is recognised by many outside the Government, and by this side of the Chamber, is that it makes economic sense to spend public money on housing. House-building is labour intensive, it uses fewer imports than any other industry and it not only creates jobs but provides homes.
In conclusion, I fully accept that many families will have their housing needs met by the private sector but it must not be forgotten that there are families whose only chance of a home is in the public sector. The Government must face the fact that those thousands of families who are unsatisfactorily housed, or those with no homes, the elderly and the disabled, are of equal concern, and in many instances their provision will only be funded by public housing by local authorities, by partnership schemes or by housing associations.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I correct her statement referring to my speech? My comment was that I did not intend to discuss the structural defects of industrialised building, not that I was unaware of them.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the topic which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has chosen for

727
debate this afternoon—the state of our housing stock—is obviously of fundamental importance to everyone in the country. Regretfully, one cannot always gauge the importance of a debate by the fact that it has attracted a maiden speaker. Today, though, is an exception. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, gave us the benefit of his wide knowledge of the mortgage market and the building industry. He produced evidence of a most valuable scheme which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friends.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke with all the conviction and deep knowledge of housing matters that he characteristically shows. I welcome the opportunity to say something about the Government's approach and policies. I shall come a little later to the question of post-war housing, on which most of the debate has concentrated, but first I want to set in a wider context the issues that have been raised.
First, for most of this century the basis of the housing problem has been one of sheer lack of housing. Today, however, thanks to post-war building programmes, there are about 1.1 million more dwellings than households. Of course, I realise that the true underlying housing situation cannot be gauged simply on the basis of this crude measure of relativity. Certainly we need to take full account, among other matters, of the condition of that stock. But the housing argument has ceased to be simply about the number of dwellings being built.
My second point is the tremendous growth in home ownership. Owner-occupation grew steadily during the 1970s, and by June 1983 nearly 62 per cent. of dwellings in England were owner-occupied—an increase of over 5 per cent. since the Government came to power in May 1979. I understand that the official Opposition are coming round to seeing the very real benefits of the right to buy, on which I shall later have a little to say—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain what he means by that? I am sure that he did not intend it, but it came over as rather a snide remark. I do not know what he meant about "coming round to it". We have never ever said that there should not be a right to buy. All we are saying is that the right to buy should not be taken to the extreme where we do not have houses to rent for those people who cannot afford to buy.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I have given the impression of being snide, I would say that that was certainly not my intention—at least not quite at that point in my speech. But, as I understand it, in the past when the right-to-buy legislation was first promoted, the Labour Opposition were dead set against it as a concept, whereas now, I believe, they are—perhaps "breaking ranks" is the wrong expression—coming to an acceptance that there is a logic to it, and quite a good one.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we were not against the principle, but rather against the legislation itself, with the enormous discount.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I think that the record ought to be put right. As an ex-Whip in another place, who dealt with all the housing Bills, I would say that the official standpoint of the Labour Opposition was, and still is, that the prerogative to sell council houses ought to be left with the local authority which owns them, taking into account local need. The local authority ought not to be dictated to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, right; so we have got that straight. I still do not think I agree with it, but nonetheless—
A noble Lord: You are coming round to it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Well, my Lords, perhaps there is a lot in the housing field that we should all come round to and over which we should start to accommodate each other. I was talking about the increase in owner-occupation. There is no doubt that this trend reflects a deep-seated preference on the part of the people. It also has important implications for the repair and maintenance of the stock, the primary responsibility for which rests increasingly on the owner-occupier. If home-ownership is one great aspiration, there has also been a steady social pressure for improvements in the standard of housing.
As recently as 1971 there were nearly 3.2 million dwellings in England which were either unfit or lacked at least one basic amenity such as a bathroom, or were in serious disrepair, and indeed suffered from some of the very disturbing problems we have been hearing about this afternoon in stories about particular houses and buildings.
By 1981, that figure had been reduced to just over 2 million and, of those, 15 per cent. were standing vacant. That is very real progress, and, so far as the general condition of the stock is concerned, I would refute any suggestion that we are facing a crisis. For the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to refer to 50 years as the period needed to put the housing stock into reasonable condition is, I consider, alarmist.
A noble Baroness: It is true.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, how can it be? There is certainly a growing problem of disrepair and I will try in a few moments to describe how the Government propose to tackle it, but first I want to put into proportion the contribution which the public sector makes towards maintaining the private sector stock. With respect, I do not seem to be doing very well at the moment because there seems to be constant barracking and opposition, though, in view of the subject, perhaps I should say I am not surprised!
I think, I am about to incur the opprobrium of your Lordships yet again: nonetheless I intend to say this. It is, with respect, facile to suggest, as has been suggested by the Opposition today, that the condition of our housing stock is related simply to the amount of public expenditure made available for home improvement and repair. Why cannot the party opposite understand that the fact that you increase the sums of money to solve a problem does not actually do anything for the root cause? Public expenditure can only prime the pump. In the 1980s we estimate that in the owner-

729
occupied and private rented sectors, privately-financed expenditure on home improvement and repairs, whether by way of loans or cash savings, was some 30 times that financed by the taxpayer and the ratepayer. In all but the very short term, the condition of the housing stock will reflect the overall performance of a country's economy and not just levels of public expenditure on improvement grants and housing subsidy.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, in introducing this debate, referred to the English House Condition Survey of 1981, and one other noble Lord asked whether it would be published following its normal quinquennial pattern. My understanding is that it will. The condition of the housing stock revealedin that survey reflected years of poor national economic performance. The survey suggested that about one dwelling in 10 was either unfit, lacked amenities or needed repairs costing over £7,000. If the repair level was lowered to £2,500, about one in four was affected, as we have heard. It also showed quite clearly that unsatisfactory conditions are still most likely to be found in properties built before 1919.
We have been doing a great deal to meet these challenges. As my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made clear in a recent debate on housing repair and improvement in another place, since 1979 we have made the home improvement grant system more flexible, more generous and better attuned to the needs of priority groups. We have also provided local authorities with the resources to enable them to give grants in numbers which were unheard of throughout Labour's period of office. Take repair grants: between 1974 and the beginning of 1979 no more than 500 such grants were paid over the whole country. In the first half of 1983, 44,000 such grants were paid, 90 times as many as in the whole 1974–1979 period. We have acted on an unprecedented scale to tackle the problem.
Inevitably, however, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and other noble Lords who have spoken, asked about the HIP allocations for 1984–85. I hoped that when I was answering on Monday I had explained that, but I obviously failed to satisfy the House. As my right honourable friend announced on 24th September, gross provision for housing investment by local authorities in 1984–85 is £2,522 million. From within this gross provision, the total available for Housing Investment Programme allocations is £1,853 million. In addition to those allocations, authorities are also free to reinvest the prescribed portion of their housing capital receipts. There is no doubt that in the past they have not always done it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to a potential overspend this year. We shall just have to see what comes about, but my understanding at the moment is that there will not be a general overspend at all. We estimate that authorities will generate £666 million of receipts next year, which will be available for investment over and above their allocations. I was asked about grant expenditure and I can tell the House that total spending on all types of grants was about £90 million in 1978–79, nearly £200 million in 1981–82, £430 million in 1982–83 and it is expected to be exactly the same next year. Of course, it is too early to say what the outturn of the current year will be.
730
It might be sensible if I turn now to the housing built since 1945, and particularly to that built by the public sector. In this modern stock, there have been some serious problems of design, materials and workmanship—more than we all should wish to have seen in comparatively new buildings. It is distressing when blocks of flats built no more than 15 years ago have to be demolished, because their basic design or layout is so unsatisfactory, or because they cannot be repaired at worthwhile cost. But we need to keep a due sense of proportion about these problems. We in the Government and local authorities, tenants, the building professions and the lending institutions must all take care in assessing their implications for the stock as a whole, or I fear that we shall rush into hasty, ill-judged and costly action which is certainly not immediately necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, suggested an all-party agreement on spending on housing with figures for replacement agreed by everyone. Would that I could, but I have never really believed in heaven on earth. It would not, of course, work, as no policy can ever be decided in isolation from all the others which come within a Government's programme. It would also have to be decided within the framework of the current Government's economic ethos.
About 11 million houses and flats have been built in the United Kingdom since the war and 5 million have been built by private developers. The house building industry has responded to the aspirations of more and more people to own their own homes. I am told that private housing starts for Great Britain are expected to reach a level of 165,000 this year—a figure which was last exceeded only in the days of the previous Conservative Administration in 1973. A small number of failures is only to be expected given the numbers built, but the evidence is that the overwhelming majority will continue in satisfactory condition for many years.
The same is true of the majority of the 6 million dwellings built by the public sector since 1945. About 5 million used conventional designs and materials. They provide comfortable accommodation, though no doubt, as living patterns and standards change, some work will be needed to meet the rising expectations of the occupiers. A little over 1 million dwellings of unconventional types and materials were built, mostly by the public sector, to speed house building. There has been a higher incidence of problems with these houses, but again we should keep a sense of balance. We must not damn more than 1 million buildings on the basis of problems with a limited number of the very many distinct types.
First, there are the 170,000 houses built of prefabricated reinforced concrete before 1960. When they were built there was no reason to believe that this material would not produce a house comparable to one built on conventional lines. To date, these houses have been excellent homes for very many people. The Building Research Establishment's recent studies show that many will continue to be safe and sound for a considerable number of years. The structural members are, however, subject to gradual deterioration which cannot be halted altogether. In these circumstances, private owners have a special difficulty, because the remaining life of the houses is not sufficient to justify a substantial mortgage and an

731
unmortgageable house is seriously devalued, if not unmarketable.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who asked about grant-aiding owners of system-built houses where they are facing damage and dereliction due to their specific method of construction. We intend to introduce a Bill as soon as possible to introduce a scheme based on that for Airey house owners, to help qualifying owners of houses sold by public bodies on the basis of values which did not reflect defects, or potential defects, not discoverable by normal survey at the time of sale.
The 150,000 prefabricated reinforced concrete houses which remain in public ownership will gradually have to be repaired or replaced, if that is required, but the Building Research Establishment's findings suggest that this is not something which has to happen overnight. It is a medium-term problem which authorities can tackle over a considerable number of years.
I am concerned that the House wishes to hound us into panic measures which are not appropriate; into a crash programme of immediate and massive expenditure which, unless special arrangements are made, will eat into the Housing Investment Programme resources which are needed for other purposes. Some expenditure will be needed in the next few years, of course, and I readily admit that. As I said in answer to a supplementary question on Monday, the provision made for housing capital expenditure in 1984–85 has been fixed in the light of that and other needs. We shall also be looking with the local authority associations at the general needs index formula of allocation to assess whether any changes are needed. In the end, the message must be the same as with nontraditional houses built before 1960: assess the problems objectively, do not undertake expenditure before it is needed and do not assume that housing of different, if similar, types, or even other houses of the same type, will automatically suffer from the same problems. All will depend on the cause of the problems.
I have had to cover very quickly a great deal of ground with, I agree, several interruptions which have been brought entirely upon myself, and I must apologise if I have not be able to do justice in the time available to the points made by some of those who have spoken. In closing, I want to make two points. First, the role of public policy in maintaining and improving our housing stock lies in giving a lead to and facilitating private investment. Secondly, where public resources are being spent, the point is to make sure that they are used efficiently and to help where the need is greatest. I am absolutely convinced that in some of the cases which we have been hearing about in this debate the need is very great, but I am not convinced that the totality of the problem is as has been described by noble Lords this afternoon.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am really disappointed by the speech of the Minister. The Government continue to be complacent about this issue. It is not that houses have deteriorated because you are not spending enough money now. They are
732
deteriorating and the deterioration will not be checked unless you spend more money than you are spending now. We are not asking for a rush programme. What we are asking for is that expenditure on housing should be increased. Expenditure on housing is steadily being decreased. I hope that when the Minister talks with his colleagues they will think again, because we need a new and different approach.
I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on his maiden speech and thank him for the way he explained the building society scheme. I had read about it and was attracted by it, so I was glad to hear about the details. I am grateful also to my noble friends Lord Dean of Beswick and Lady Fisher of Rednal for dealing with industrialised buildings, in particular the post-1960 buildings which are in need of urgent attention. I was sorry that again the Government did not take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Dean: that the local authorities will be unable to tackle the problem unless the Government give them more help than they are recieving at the moment.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that all-party agreement is needed on a programme for preserving, renovating and renewing houses. We do not necessarily always have to have a party battle. This problem concerns all people and we ought to be able to agree on the way to deal with it. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for underlining three important points: that increased capital spending on housing makes good economic sense; that bad housing causes severe social stress; and that the longer you delay improvement the more expensive it becomes. Those are three points which the Government had better take on board.
Finally, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—an old friend of mine from County Hall—that I am not suggesting that we should merely clear. I have always made it quite clear that we ought to rehabilitate wherever we can and that we should clear where this is necessary. That was my suggested programme.
As for the question of mortgage tax relief, everybody runs away from it, but I am not going to do so. Mortgage tax relief is housing expenditure and must be regarded as such. When you do so you recognise that this country is not spending money in the best possible way. Because of that fact I believe there is need for reform. Having made those points. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, before the next debate on the Order Paper is called and before the clock starts, it might be for the convenience of the House if, with the leave of the House, I made a short business statement, repeating part of the statement which I made after Question Time today.
There is a long list of speakers in the coming debate. The noble Lord who is to open the debate is, by custom, entitled to 15 minutes. My noble friend who is to reply is entitled to rise to reply 20 minutes before

733
the scheduled end of the debate. This means that the speakers in the body of the debate have a maximum, on average, of six minutes. As I said earlier this afternoon, any noble Lord who exceeds his six minutes will inevitably be doing so at the expense of later speakers in the debate. Just to emphasise what I am saying, may I point out to the House that if any noble Lord, while still on his feet, sees the figure "6" appear on the clock opposite, he will know that he is already running late.

The Arts
5.45 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi rose to call attention to the situation in the Arts; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a great privilege to open this short debate, which is the first general arts debate that your Lordships' House has had for some time, and I am glad that so many noble Lords have expressed an interest in it. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
We on these Benches welcome the presence here of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, the Minister for the Arts, and we look forward to his reply. The noble Earl has, of course, other important responsibilities as well. First, he is responsible for the Government's Management and Personnel Office, formerly known as the Civil Service Department. This is an important and exacting job and one that until now has usually been the responsibility of the Leader of this House. The noble Earl is, secondly, a Treasury spokesman, and I know how knowledgeable he is on Treasury matters. Thirdly, he is the Minister for the Arts.
Apart from this heavy workload, there must be problems of divided loyalties when the noble Earl's Treasury self has to fight his arts and libraries self. I realise that this is not the noble Earl's fault, but I hope that, one day, he will be allowed to concentrate on his arts responsibilities, for there is surely much to be done.
There is, for example, deep concern about the effect on the arts of the Government's impetuous decision to disband the Greater London Council and the metropolitan authorities. This cannot have been thought through, and the noble Earl is left to try to sort out the muddle. Are the Government confident that the local authorities will be willing or able to increase their support to fill the void caused by the abolition of the metropolitans? Does the Minister think that a district council is going, in these hard pressed times, to fund regional and even national facilities for the ratepayers of other districts? Is there not a danger that the North-East and Merseyside may become cultural deserts, with the closure of major theatres, museums and art galleries?
As the Arts Council said recently in a statement:
"This simply cannot be left to the chance decisions of individual districts and boroughs".
The Walker Gallery in Liverpool and the Laing Art Gallery in Newcastle, neither of which could the Government abandon, are to be put under the Tate! This will surely make for administrative difficulties and increase the bias in favour of London at the
734
expense of the regions. And what is going to happen to the Lady Lever Art Gallery, which is at present run by the Walker?
In the GLC area, the White Paper proposes to put Kenwood and the Geffrye Museum under the Victoria and Albert Museum, which has four outstations already—Apsley House, Ham House, Osterley and the Museum of Childhood at Bethnal Green. Would it not be better for Kenwood to have its own body of trustees and to be funded by central Government, in the same way as the Wallace Collection?
Concerning the Geffrye Museum, the chairman of the advisory committee has said that in the absence of any detail as to how the proposal is to be implemented she feels unable to accept it. The Government have given no indication of the level of resources to be made available to the Geffrye and of its status in relation to the V and A. The present arrangements seem to be working well, so why change them?
I must also ask the Government why it is proposed to put the Horniman Museum and Library under the British Museum. The museum's advisory committee do not want to make any change. There is concern, too, about the future of the Dolmetsch instrumental collection, now in the care of the Horniman. Will the Government confirm that this unique collection will be preserved intact? I should also like to ask the noble Earl what is to happen to Marble Hill House and Ranger's House, both of which the Government seem to have forgotten in their White Paper. I do not blame them. They were probably rather hard pressed to get the White Paper out in time.
I note that the GLC's South Bank complex is to be transferred to an independent board of management, or quango, under the Arts Council. The White Paper says that the complex as a whole, to which the GLC has been granting £4 million a year, should be run on commercially viable lines. What does this mean? Will the Government confirm that there will be no lowering of artistic standards for box office ends?
I should like the Minister to confirm, if he will, that it will not be necessary to close down one of the four independent London orchestras when the GLC finance is removed. The musical life of the metropolis would be the poorer in consequence. What is to happen also to the Northern Sinfonia? There is much concern, too, about the future of the British Film Institute, which receives £340,000 annually from the GLC. Are the Government going to replace that? Will the Minister tell the House how much extra money is to be given to the Arts Council to meet the shortfall in GLC arts funding, which totals over £11 million a year? The Arts Council has just warned that, anyway, there will be a serious crisis if there is not an increase of 20 per cent. in its general grant. The council has said that it will be forced to cut its grants to a number of major organisations.
The recent Priestley scrutiny of the Royal Opera House shows that it is under-funded by some 17 per cent. and will be overdrawn by more than £1 million by the end of the financial year. Shortage of funds means that it is limited to only two new productions a year—half the normal number. As Sir Claus Moser said the other day, we cannot live on a constant diet of "La Bohème".
I hope that the Minister will let the House have his views on the suggestion in the Priestley report for separate Government funding for the four principal companies—the Royal Opera, the Royal Shakespeare Company, The National Theatre and the English National Opera. Those companies have always been funded by the Arts Council, so that they are independent of the state. I understand that the council would be opposed to any change, as it attaches great importance to the arm's-length principle. Are the Government proposing to reduce the Arts Council's responsibilities or to review them? The House needs to be told about the Government's intentions, as this is rather an important matter.
I am greatly concerned as well about the level of central Government funding for the purchase grants of our national museums and galleries. The National Gallery grant, for example, is no longer sufficient in most cases today to buy an outstanding painting—let alone more than one—if it comes on the market. At the time of the last Labour Government there was a radical increase in purchase grants, but since then it appears that there has been no serious rethinking of the situation. There is now a grave discrepancy between the prices of outstanding paintings and the funds available to acquire them.
It is no good the Reviewing Committee holding up an export licence, and the noble Earl going through all the stages of that procedure, if the money cannot be raised. Even for lower priced paintings there are problems. One thinks of Constable's brilliant sketch for the "Corn Field", one of his most famous paintings, which the Tate badly wanted and which was offered by the family in lieu of capital transfer tax and turned down by the Treasury. One thinks also of the enchanting Richard Dadd roundel, "Titania and Oberon", which should have gone to the Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery, which was keen to have it, and has now gone overseas.
Although I tend to be a free trader in this respect, I believe that both those paintings—and there have been other cases also since the election—are part of our heritage and should have been secured for the nation. I must therefore ask the noble Earl whether the Government have thought about this problem at all, and whether they have any long-term plans to protect Britain's heritage? Are they, for example, considering increasing purchase grants or introducing more fiscal advantage to owners who offer their art treasures in payment of capital taxes? In the United States, there are substantial tax concessions to owners who donate works of art to public galleries and museums. Indeed, they have been able to build up some very splendid collections in consequence.
In this country, moreover, dealers have an inducement to sell abroad from Britain, as there is no VAT on exports. I hope that the Arts Minister will try to persuade his other Treasury self to do something about these problems with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
One way of increasing funds is through sponsorship, which at present is running at about £12 million a year. Much more needs to be done to provide encouragement to potential sponsors. The Select Committee
736
of another place recommended that companies should be exempt from tax on a percentage of their pre-tax profits for all donations to the arts. This would give the United Kingdom the same "tax breaks" as in the United States.
Lastly, may I make a plea for the University museums—the Ashmolean at Oxford and the Fitzwilliam at Cambridge—with which I should like to bracket the Dulwich Picture Gallery? These three enjoy an international esteem, yet they receive no central Government money and their funding comes from the educational institutions concerned—from monies made available for educational rather than strictly museum purposes. In these days of financial stringency, those important museums are finding it increasingly difficult to provide adequate facilities and security—and there have had to be staff reductions, closed days, closed areas, and so on.
In Dulwich, which has one of the most important private collections anywhere, the little Rembrandt portrait (a painting of first class importance and of great beauty) has now been stolen again, for the fourth time. In consequence, some rooms have had to be closed and paintings removed from public exhibition.
May I ask the noble Earl the Minister if he will direct his mind to helping those three museums? We have reached the stage where some financial support from central Government is absolutely essential. I am sure that it would be acceptable to the universities concerned, and also to Dulwich, if some of the members of the governing bodies became Government appointments.
The matter is urgent, as the problems at Dulwich will become even more acute when the GLC's annual grant is removed. If the Treasury want a precedent—and I know that they love precedents—they might remember that central Government already contribute substantially to the running costs of the Soane Museum privately founded in London by Sir John Soane, who, incidentally, was the architect of the Dulwich Picture Gallery.
These and other problems, as I said at the outset, are causing increasing concern. I hope that the Government are going to show that they really care about the arts and that they are not going to subject them to short-sighted stringency, instant decisions, and a somewhat philistine approach. I beg to move for Papers.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for this opportunity; grateful and, for my part, appalled at the task of tackling the whole of the arts in six minutes. Talk about Renaissance man! I am particularly appalled because I believe that my party has a policy for the wholesale restructuring of the subsidy system which the nation ought to take on board and which this Government in particular could take on board without in any way sacrificing their principles. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister has read it. If he has not read it, I hope that he will do so; I will get a copy to him if he does not have one.
The present system does not work. It is not for lack of money. Central Government spending—both Tory and Labour—on the arts has more than doubled in

737
real terms over the past 10 years. Local authority spending—again, of all persuasions—has also increased. That is good. It is not, of course, enough. It is relatively less than most other European countries spend, and, in any case, £12 a head—or less than one-third of the cost of a television licence—does not seem much to spend on all our libraries, museums, art galleries and theatres.
I am alarmed, however, at the thought that, despite this increase in public spending, the arts are still in a state of financial crisis. Subsidy, or at least our way of handing out subsidies, has not managed to solve the chronic financial insecurity of the arts. The crisis is, if anything, worse than it was 10 years ago. The Arts Council has warned that if it does not receive another £15 million of public money it will have to embark on another round of drastic cuts. Artists as a whole still remain the least well paid and the most insecure section of our society, even those of them who are in work, and their incomes are continually being whittled away, not just by the loss and the diminution of grants, but also by the loss of part-time teaching jobs caused by education cuts. On top of all that, the proposed abolition of the metropolitan authorities is bound to cause havoc among the many institutions which have previously looked to them for support. We have doubled public spending but the arts are worse off than ever. What has gone wrong?
One of the many answers, I believe, is that our very methods of handling subsidies to the arts have done more harm than good. From the very beginning we have not been concerned with the health of the arts professions as a whole—and here I feel I shall have Lord Jenkins on my side—but only with certain favoured sections of them. We have indulged in a rather feudal type of patronage, supporting those organisations which have acquired political and establishment clout and ignoring or undervaluing the rest.
I give one solitary example from the many problems that distortion brings: the Royal Shakespeare Company, in competition with the National Theatre, faced a small deficit last year. Did they put their prices up? They did not, because the National Theatre, with a considerably higher grant, had tickets lower priced than theirs. The result is that everyone says the RSC is under funded. Perhaps; or perhaps the National Theatre is over funded. We do not know. Subsidy plucks on subsidy, distortion breeds distortion. It affects the whole chain and hits hardest in the theatre at the provincial and commercial theatres at the bottom of the chain. After 30 years of this, there is some very good theatre, but there are less theatres to go to, and the decisions as to which are to survive are not made by the people, the public, but by the mandarins.
If we threaten, through our methods of subsidy, the pluralism of the system, we are not just running ourselves into economic trouble but we are damaging the very cause that we all wish to support, the health of the arts. The economic distortions caused by our methods of doling out subsidy are one important reason why more public spending is constantly required, and the Government should take that to heart. There need not be a great deal more money produced if the subsidy methods are reformed. We
738
should be concerned not simply with the viability of this theatre or that theatre, this or that arts organisation, but with the economic health of the arts system as a whole. This is particularly important at this time, when we are faced with a growing number of people with unstructured time and a genuine increase in leisure, melding with a recession and technical change. Now, above all, we need a strong, vital and pluralistic culture.
We have been lucky in Britain, in that many of our artists have been prepared to struggle on under what are often intolerable circumstances. It is time we learnt to respond to their effort. A new deal for the artist is what is needed, and a new deal by way of a restructuring of our arts system. We need a fresh look at the very way in which we support the arts in Britain, or else we shall be back here in 10 years' time holding the same learned, cultured and informed debate, but with nothing achieved at all.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I shall be very brief—and I am glad that so many of your Lordships are interested in the arts that we must all be brief. I am a back number, but I hope no one will doubt my lifelong devotion to the arts. Of course, there never has been, and never will be, money enough to satisfy all the demands of those concerned to promote them. What there is will always in the last resort depend not so much on what the Government provide as on what those who are concerned and interested are willing and able by their enthusiasm and their own efforts to put into it in one way and another.
As to the Government, the medium through which they assist the arts is in the main the Arts Council. There are, of course, many others—the universities, the galleries and museums, the National Heritage Fund and so on. As to the Arts Council, it is difficult to maintain that the Government are starving the arts. If the product of a cut of 1 per cent. for the Arts Council is insignificant in the context of the national Budget, that, after all, cuts both ways. If 1 per cent. of the Arts Council's budget is insignificant as a saving, it surely is not all that severe as a pruning, and some pruning is both necessary and desirable, to ensure that what is made available is most effectively applied.
Looking back over the years, I recollect that when I was appointed in 1960 as chairman of the Arts Council, Sir Kenneth Clark, from whom I took over, said to me, "Everyone tells me that we ought to have double. I am sure that if we had double a great deal of it would be wasted". That was a long time ago and there has since then been swingeing inflation, but, even so, your Lordships will hardly believe that the figure of which he spoke was at that time no more than £1½million, whereas this year the corresponding figure is £93½ million—60 times as much. And we are now told that that is not nearly enough; that it should be £110 million or even as much as 20 per cent. more if the Council is to be enabled to do all that is essentially necessary. The fact is that there will never be nearly enough to enable the Council to do all that they would very properly like to do. All credit to them for their concerns and their ambitions, but there must be some limit, some control. After all, all of us, to use the old phrase, have to cut our coat according to the cloth available.

739
So I conclude that, in the light of the figures that I have given, the suggestion that the Government are starving the arts cannot really be sustained. They provide a not ungenerous figure to the Arts Council to add to what is available to the arts from very many other sources. There is no doubt whatever that the arts in this country now flourish as never before, and that is the important thing. We must all rejoice that it is so, and long may it continue!
6.9 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I want primarily to talk about the performing arts. I suppose, like the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, that I also am a back number, having been chairman of the Arts Council in the mid-70s, but I still have a connection with the arts through the Royal Opera House, of which I am a director, and Glyndebourne and one or two other institutions.
Arts such as the opera companies, the ballet, the permanent theatre companies and orchestras have never been for long funded purely by the citizens through the box office and they never will be. The gap between expenditure and box office in America is funded largely through tax concessions; in Europe the figure is about 75 per cent. through the state, and here the public cost is lower but still the funding falls mainly on public funds.
In trying to restrain public expenditure the Government stress the role of private patronage, and they are quite right to do so. It is a useful additional resource and helps to diffuse patronage throughout the community. But it can only help at the margins. As an example, last year the Royal Opera House raised from the private sector about £900,000, or 4½ per cent. of its total expenditure. Your Lordships may well think that the Royal Opera House is particularly well placed to raise funds from private sources but the recent scrutiny of the Royal Opera House, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, came up with the view that to do the job required of it and prevent a serious fall in standards about a 17 per cent. uplift in its grant was necessary. In fact, the Arts Council assessed that need at 21 per cent. If one takes a mean between the two and turns it into cash that is about £ 2 million. That is not impossible to find from the private sector if the Government extend the thoughts of their manifesto beyond the manifesto and introduce realistic tax incentives. But it is quite impossible if all we can look for are modest improvements, which is what the Minister for the Arts suggested in his Blackpool speech.
In present conditions, therefore, private patronage is a help but not a solution. Even if it were a financial solution it would not provide the continuity which alone makes excellence a possibility for a national arts company. I know how much store the Prime Minister sets by excellence. She wants Britain to excel. She is interested that we should excel in this sphere and she knows as well as anybody that excellence in the arts, as elsewhere, costs money.
I have one other point. The noble Earl, the Minister for the Arts, said at Blackpool, very wisely, that artistic achievement is not continuous, so grant-aiding should not be continuous either. He added that it is dangerous to institutionalise public funding more than is
740
absolutely necessary. The Arts Council appeared, in agreement with that doctrine, to be reviewing the possibility of a significant shift in resources between its clients—a very brave and proper thing to do. At the same time, in the recent Government scrutiny of the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company there appeared the suggestion that these companies were different in kind from other Arts Council clients and that they might be funded directly by the Government. In his Blackpool speech the Minister expressed his dislike of direct funding, and of course he is right. It would diminish the Arts Council, which is our chosen and proven method of funding the arts and which therefore ought not to be diminished, and even worse it would force the Arts Council into having to champion the cause of its remaining clients against those directly funded by the Government, which would be unnecessarily time wasting and divisive.
The Minister hinted at a compromise and the only compromise I can imagine would take the form of a block grant made through the Arts Council, earmarked en bloc for certain companies such as the Royal Opera House, the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Coliseum. but divided between them by the Arts Council according to its assessment of their needs. The argument is that the continued existence of such companies is now accepted and, indeed, insisted upon by the community so that the only decision is how much they need if they are to do the job required of them. I can see the attractions in the introduction of a block grant of this kind.
There is a difference in kind between the institutionalised companies and those of which some will come and some will go. It may be that the basic decision of how much money to spend on them is a political as well as an artistic one. Perhaps the Arts Council ought to be relieved of the decision, over which it agonises every year, on cutting the cake between those companies and the rest. But where is the line to be drawn? Ought not Scottish opera and Welsh opera to be among the institutions in the block grant? What is to be the fate of the companies singled out in the Government's consultative paper on the arts for extra Arts Council funding in consequence of the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs? Apart from the National Theatre and the Coliseum there are seven others. Are they to be added to the block grant? If so, I think the list is too big. The dangers of institutionalising public funding needs stricter containment. No doubt the proposal to abolish these authorities was not thought of in terms of the arts, but the consequences to the arts, into which I cannot go because my time is coming to an end, are serious and not to be as lightly dealt with as I believe they have been in a White Paper.
My time is almost up and during my last minute I want to revert to the basic issue. To my mind this is a question of quantum. I am not arguing that the Government have been ungenerous, but I am arguing that a little more would make a great deal of difference and that its value to the country would be entirely beyond the sums of money involved. The chairman of the Arts Council said that £20 million would solve his problem. Does the Minister feel that £20 million is really a politically unacceptable quantum leap, as he

741
implied at Blackpool? Are we so philistine that that is politically unacceptable? We are like a company which is in some difficulty and has a treasurer who warns us that we must not spend until we have earned the money. Such a company needs other members of the board to say where creative expenditure is necessary and when it will be effective in improving prospects and assisting growth. It is my belief that arts expenditure will do just that and I ask the noble Earl, the Minister for the Arts, to assign to himself the noble role of proclaiming that undoubted truth.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, the House of Commons Select Committee came to certain conclusions after a study of the arts. To us, the case for fostering the arts rests on the immediate need to stimulate the constructive and active use of leisure by the many. Arts for all. I do not believe that enough is being done in localities to foster the arts. I think that more could be done, and will be done, because of the impetus that is now set free to do more about art in the provinces.
In our district we have 22,000 people. We saw that the deeds, documents and material that should be under supervision by archivists were being drained out of the district. We went to the local authority to see what we could do in the way of getting space for them to be looked after. We found that there was no space available, so we started to build a museum of our own. It took us 10 years to do it. We have now completed it within £3,000 of the total, and the building itself is worth £250,000. We are able to look after it, and this is one of the marriages which can take place between volunteers on the ground and the professionals. We are now employing 10 professionals, six of them full-time and four ordinary part-time.
There has been an enormous change during the past 10 years. There is no doubt whatever that progress has been made and that there has been an enormous backing of the arts by the Government in all sorts of ways. We cannot turn the clock back. Arts for all is with us, and will continue to be with us. The day when the amateur was confined to singing and practically nothing else has gone. We have the music schools of Yehudi Menuhin, the Bath and Wells School, the Cheetham Hospital School and the Royal Northern College of Music. We are now creating artists of a quality which is absolutely superb. We have a score of amateur orchestras in the country which compare very well with the professionals. Very few young people will ever be chosen to play professionally, they will play irrespective of what the country or the Government do. Good luck to them.
Locally, we are very humble in our efforts. We had 48 brass bands visiting our district in one day—a mecca for the grass roots. The big bands were not against coming to compete with youngsters from the schools. They believe that they can be invigorated and renewed by coming back to grass roots.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, mentioned opera. May I say this to him? When you destroyed opera for all, you destroyed your grass roots.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, may I just point out that I did not destroy opera for all?
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, whoever did is immaterial, but it destroyed the grass roots. Young singers came to our district and we could find them an audience of 400. They met and mixed with the public. The people in our district used to follow their careers. The same applies to ballet for all.
As president of the North-West Arts Association, may I say this? Whatever alternative is finally arrived at, I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms at least to protect the current level of expenditure on the arts by the metropolitan counties through whatever means are at their disposal. Although I do not hold the view that any particular structure is the only one through which stable and adequate provision can be made, I point out as a matter of fact that arts provision has improved as a result of the creation of the metropolitan counties. I am very deeply concerned that the proposals in their present form do not offer protection for that existing provision, let alone any hope of growth and development.
If the amounts that are presently channelled to the arts are reduced, it would be folly. But I think that people can do a lot more for themselves. I only hope that due consideration will he given to the change before it is made. The last boundary alterations led to chaos. I wish the Government well in their efforts to find a better solution to local government than we have now, but I ask them, please, under no circumstances to reduce the grants that we enjoy at present.
6.23 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, as has already been said, Parliament has treated the Arts Council well. Its budget has risen significantly over the years, but as the grants increased, a flaw of some social importance appeared. Too much was being spent on too narrow a range of activities. In the early 1970s some modest steps were taken to change course, but now the recession has aggravated that flaw, and in the foreseeable future we shall have more people with time on their hands, whether they are employed or unemployed. For them the spread of the arts widely, and at a rather different level than that with which the Arts Council has been preoccupied, is necessary. I therefore feel that I must urge upon the Minister a major shift in policy.
When it started, the Arts Council did not have the resources, and perhaps not the inclination, to spare a thought for work below the level of a sophisticated audience. It did not pay any attention to amateurs. It did not think it its business to become expert in marketing the arts, be they the subsidised arts, or otherwise. Marketing is vital in a society where the social mix—already much improved—is far from satisfactory and the levels of taste for that very reason differ widely. In such conditions it makes more sense to use public money to persuade people to buy contemporary art, or seats at a performance, than to subsidise works which please nobody but the artists and their closest admirers.
Why has marketing received comparatively little attention? I suppose that it is because of a superior belief that the demand is inelastic; it would be a waste of resources to try to popularise work for which the general public will never care. Such a view, held by

743
very distinguished persons, was bound to favour the great national companies in the centre of London. Their standards were of the highest. Their audience was thought to be assured. Let us all agree that those great companies must be adequately supported—but not at the cost of dismissing the vast number of people who have not yet learned to appreciate the arts. That is the reason why, when I was the Minister responsible, I had to insist that a much larger slice of the Arts Council's budget was given to the regional arts associations. I also hoped that marketing would become a major concern of the Arts Council and of the Crafts Council. Excellent work has been done in some of the regions: but the latter hope has not been fulfilled.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will act in the belief that today there exists a huge, latent, half-conscious desire to enjoy experience which combines beauty and order—not an immediate demand for the highest forms of art, but for ladders of artistic experience up which old and young can climb as far as their awakening interest will carry them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend might consider one or two changes.
I do not agree with the noble Lord. Lord Gibson, about hiving off the national companies from the Arts Council. It is done with many other national institutions, with good effect on their budgets. A separation would have two effects so far as the Arts Council is concerned. First, it would stop the jealousy which is aroused by comparing the size of the grants to the national companies with those to the regions. But much more importantly, it would release the Arts Council to pay adequate attention to marketing. Secondly, I think that teachers, librarians, and museum curators should be welcomed as partners with the arts administrators and be directly involved in forming policy. If art is to become a necessity of life—which it certainly should do—we shall need the help of all the branches of education.
All my suggestions amount to this. The policy of subsidising art for art's sake, which is so dear to many of my best friends, should not be abandoned, but should be supplemented with vigorous action to bring the artist and the public at all levels closer together. Artists are not paying as much attention as they used to to what the public want. Of all those objects on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum, I wonder how many were in the first instance commissioned. I should think the great majority. Can we re-establish some such intimate relationship between the artist and the public?
In conclusion, I put it to the Minister that the purpose of art is to make life better for as many people as possible. I hope that my noble friend will go down in history as someone who saw that there exists in Britain an audience for the arts of unsuspected dimensions—men, women and children hungry for the arts, if only the right opportunities were on offer. Our technological society can so easily become a society where only money counts. That was foreseen by Simone Weil, a religious philosopher, and I end by quoting her words:
"Workers will need poetry more than bread".
6.31 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, last Wednesday, the Lord President of the Council said:
"The truth is that those who press for reductions in public spending in general still have their own favourite projects which they wish to protect or indeed enhance".
How right he was, and so I shall be a good boy and not ask the Minister for an increase in the arts grants. What I will do, though, is to say what will happen if we do not get it.
The first thing we shall get, as the Priestly report says, is stagnation. The only way to avoid that is to rationalise resources as the universities have been forced to rationalise. The sombre conclusions I reached about rationalisation from my experience in the University of London is this. Every initiative I made from 1968 until 1981 to rationalise was blocked either within the University of London or on the Vice-Chancellors' Committee. Vice-Chancellors and Senates are teak bottomed. No drawing pin or screwdriver can penetrate their determination to hold what they have. No gradual cut has any effect at all. It was not until the Government announced its drastic cuts in 1980 that at last the universities were forced to rationalise, and gradually and with many a hiccough the elephant of the University of London is digesting this unpalatable bun and merging its colleges and schools. Its members would never have touched that bun unless they had been driven to by financial necessity.
A Minister for the Arts cannot rationalise because he would at once be accused of politicising the arts. But I was glad to see that Sir William Rees-Mogg had taken a leaf out of the book of the UGC and had asked his major institutions what they would do if they got 25 per cent. less money.
May I take one of the arts which I think we ought to look at from the point of view of rationalisation? The Arts Council is now supporting six major ballet companies, one of which, the Royal Ballet, has two companies: the touring and the London company. On the present budget of the council, is such a number of companies justifiable? What will happen if all are to continue is this: standards will fall, and ballet is not a form of art in which third-rate standards are acceptable.
Can we afford to keep Sadler's Wells going? It is a deplorable auditorium and it ought to have been closed when ENO went to the Coliseum. Surely some rationalisation is possible between ROH and ENO. How, with no rationalisation, can these two great institutions continue and attract the enormous tourist trade that they get?
At this point some noble Lords may be asking me whether I will include in this deplorable suggestion museums and galleries which are funded direct from DES. I will consider them. The costs of museums and galleries are never static. Now, most museums are offering a restricted service and are just keeping their heads above water; though, as I told the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, at Question Time, the price of an Old Master—and in particular the younger of the Old Masters—is now almost double the amount of the National Gallery purchase grant.
What I fear is this: if the Minister were drastically to

745
reduce the purchase grant to finance, say, the new Theatre Museum or the increased expenditure at the Tate owing to the opening of the Turner Gallery, or numbers of other projects that are in the pipeline, he might say to me or my successor, "Well, you have the remedy in your own hands; impose an entry charge; a voluntary, really an involuntary, charge as is levied in the Metropolitan Museum and the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Do not expect the Government to impose this charge. Make up the difference if you want to, or even increase your purchase grant by this simple means".
I speak as one who moved a Motion some 10 years ago against museum charges when the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, announced that the Government was imposing them. The reason why I am deeply against such charges is because, like some members of the Government, I respect so many of the values which our forefathers, the Victorians, admired; and the Victorians regarded museums and libraries as part of education. As education was free, so, they believed, should museums and libraries be free. So today should the public get these services free of charge. If museums and galleries were driven themselves to impose charges, there is little doubt that there would be a first-class row.
What are we to do? Some may argue that, if only the Government would spend less on this or that, the insignificant sum that the Government spend on the arts could he increased. Some of those who work in artistic enterprises say to me that if the nation is prepared to spend so many million pounds on Exocets, why not buy one less and use the savings for the arts? I tell them that that is a naive argument. Every great Government department—health, education, defence—has its basic needs. But there is one part of defence expenditure which is not vital to our national security and that is the present grotesquely heavy expenditure on the Falkland Islands. As one who supported the Government wholeheartedly in their action against the Argentinian invasion, I argue that the Government should now reverse their present policy as enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, at Question Time last Monday. The Government have got their priorities wrong, and that is why the health service, the social services and the arts are short of funds. But the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, need not look alarmed: I will not in a short debate take that point further.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I want to approach this debate from a regional point of view, and I must say that I find myself in very great sympathy with much that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said. I really want to make two points. We have heard of the great theatre companies, the great museums and the great orchestras in London, and I support the principle that London should be a centre of excellence; but I think that if London is to remain the centre of excellence it must draw on the services and the state of the arts in the regions, both the visual arts and the performing arts. I was reminded of this only this past week-end, when I was supporting an art fair in Leeds—a fair which had been organised by artists, by friends of artists and by business, with some support from local government.
746
The idea behind the fair was to give more support to live artists, and to encourage them. One of the sponsors recalled that he had had the good fortune marry years ago, when attending a similar small exhibition, to buy the very first David Hockney. I do not know if there were any equivalents to the David Hockneys sold at this particular fair this past weekend; but the point is that it is only by organising activities at this level and of this nature that we can support and foster new artists and develop the arts to cover a wider group of people.
Coming, as I do, from a country famous for its music and choral societies, one cannot help but think of the very many artists who have been fostered in Yorkshire and in some of the other northern counties who have subsequently moved to London to enhance the reputation of the arts and music in London. In this connection one thinks of Janet Baker and the late Kathleen Ferrier, in particular. These two artists, and many others, have been nurtured and enjoyed, as my noble friend Lord Rhodes said, by small audiences; but they have been nurtured and enjoyed by those small audiences so that they could go forward to perform before bigger audiences. They have also been supported by organisations like the Huddersfield Choral Society and the Leeds Festival Chorus, which in themselves have contributed to the excellence of the arts in London. Both these companies have themselves been the cause of having new works commissioned.
London may be one of our tourist attractions; it may be the pivot of the arts here. But it depends so much on the excellence and the standard of the arts in the provinces. Incidentally, it would be appreciated by the provinces if there was more reciprocity in this connection: if, for example, more of the exhibitions of art and more of the treasures from some of our museums could come to our regional art centres and museums, it would be much appreciated. I would not want anything to happen to the development of some of the touring companies that have brought new life to the arts in the regions.
My second point inevitably relates to funding. I want to underline the fact that funding must be as secure in the provinces as it is here in the capital. I share the concern that has been expressed by some noble Lords over what is going to happen to the funding of the arts if the metropolitan counties are abolished. One can think, for example, of Opera North. I know that this is on the list to be supported, but there is nevertheless great concern in Opera North and among the friends of Opera North as to what is to happen to it in the future. What is to happen to the Northern Sinfonia, that supports Opera North?
There are also theatres in the regions which are going to suffer. One can think in particular of the Leeds Playhouse and the Sheffield Crucible—again, both theatres that have contributed to encouraging new artists and new playwrights. One has to give serious consideration to how we can maintain the proper funding not only of the arts in London but also of the arts in the provinces.
Perhaps I can just say—and I say it with some shame—that some 20 years ago there was an effort to establish and maintain a Yorkshire Symphony Orchestra. This failed. It failed largely because funding was on an ad hoc basis, bringing together a number of

747
local authorities, and was not backed by regional authority such as one of the great metropolitan counties. I feel that we must have another think as to how we might fund the regions.
6.43 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, this is St. Andrew's Day, and in my six minutes I shall try in my remarks to concentrate upon Scotland. As a past member of the Scottish Arts Council during the palmier days of 1970, I have watched with interest the development of enterprises that were begun in that period. Let us hope that they will continue to flourish in the harsher climate of today. The Scottish Arts Council deserves all the support and encouragement that it can be given. This is no time for criticism. Indeed, it deserves congratulations for the way in which it carries out its function in difficult times. Like its sister arts councils, it faces changes in the system of local authority funding, and it is to be hoped that local authority support will be maintained despite the tendency to give arts a low priority, particularly when the local authorities are under pressure.
Unlike the Arts Council of Great Britain, we, in Scotland, decided not to embark on regional arts associations. That followed a report entitled The Arts in the Scottish Regions, to which I was a signatory. Our report was based on the belief that Scotland's needs were different from those of England and Wales, varying from small remote communities on the one hand, to the large conurbations of the central belt on the other. We preferred to continue a centralised administration, operating through our own headquarters committees and staff in conjunction with local authorities. Unfortunately, the relative load borne by the local authorities is decreasing. This is a matter of considerable concern to the Scottish Arts Council.
The Scottish Arts Council makes increasing efforts to promote activities in the far corners of our cultural wastelands. Our travelling art gallery carries small built-in exhibitions across the moors. Parties of actors, dancers, singers and musicians travel long distances to perform in local halls and, with Scottish Arts Council support, performances by the Mull Little Theatre bring drama to the west coast. Scattered across the rural areas of Scotland, approximately 70 music clubs, arts guild centres and associations each promote an average of six professional events a year. In the larger centres, the bulk of our funding—in fact, 42 per cent.—supports orchestras, a ballet company, and an opera company. It is fair to say that a relatively large part of our population cannot enjoy the amenities of the cities.
In order to maintain financial support for the arts, it is vital to foster help from the private sector. On the plus side, we, in Scotland, must acknowledge that during the past year business sponsorship for the arts has grown by 26 per cent. But the main beneficiaries from the increased revenue are the major music organisations, and sponsorship is often for work additional to an organisation's usual pattern of acitivities. In the main, the help is geared to situations involving large audience participation and comes from London-based companies with limited interests in Scotland.
748
In the context of the private sector, perhaps I may touch briefly on a subject that we debated recently; namely, tax concessions to artists, in which, once again, I declare an interest. In his winding up speech, my noble friend the Minister for the Arts, gave a sympathetic ear to proposals put forward by several of your Lordships. Much of the prosperity of all the arts will depend on the initiatives coming from my noble friend and. in particular. those which will encourage support from businesses and private individuals. Sadly, the arts are in tremendous peril and are in desperate need of help from the Government. In this situation, it is vital to publicise the tax-free scheme whereby businesses are encouraged to buy paintings and sculptures for their reception rooms under the proviso that they will help to improve the company's image and profits. Most tax inspectors co-operate, but few firms know about it.
With regard to VAT, will my noble friend please exclude the work of all contemporary artists in order to bring them in line with brother and sister writers, and so end an inconsistent anomaly? It is wrong to evade these issues on the grounds that the present taxation system is geared to deeds of covenant—which work well, thanks to the new four-year period—for fear that any moves in a different direction would weaken the system, cost money, and cause extra work. Will my noble friend please tell us where we stand and where there are hopes of change? Rather than push our suggestions into pigeonholes, will he agree to meet us round a table to discuss our proposals in detail?
In his valedictory preface to this year's report of the Arts Council of Great Britain, the retiring Secretary-General paid particular attention to one of the council's prime functions, the need to foster understanding of the arts. Much greater efforts are needed to educate the public about all the arts. In my own sphere, there is a need for more guides to take parties. particularly of young people, around exhibitions of contemporary work. This can be best done by the artists themselves. There is a need for more artists in residence to be appointed to technological schools and other places of education. Such a programme would give part-time employment to struggling artists and ensure that more of our younger generation would grow up with new resources. The cost of this programme might well be minimal, and I believe that the effort would be well worth while.
In conclusion, I would remind your Lordships that there is an increasing sense of relative deprivation so far as the arts in Scotland are concerned. All this encourages possible moves towards devolution in Scotland. That, in my view, would bring the security of the arts in Scotland into greater jeopardy. I believe that the division of available cake across the border is fair so far as Arts Council funds are concerned, but in certain ways it costs more to carry some of the cake to outlying corners.
It is also important to mention central Government support for our national galleries and libraries on a scale which is sufficient to enable them to carry out their functions properly. I understand from the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Library of Scotland that his responsibilities are now so large in relation to his resources that the library has

749
had to curtail the opening hours of the reading room. That situation gives grounds for some anxiety about cultural affairs in our capital city and about our ability to foster the enlightened of the Scottish people.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I hope that the somewhat farcical amount of time allowed for this debate does not reflect the Government's view of the importance of the arts. I fear that many may take that view.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, could I just say that the Government did not set the time for this debate.
Lord Hutchinson of I,ullington: My Lords, that I appreciate. Speaking from these Benches and in order to get it out of the way, may I say that we do not support direct funding of the four national companies. We think that their assessment must remain with the Arts Council, that to have a privileged and an underprivileged group of clients would be a disaster, and that the arm's length principle must be paramount.
However, I would like to speak about a matter to which reference has already been made; namely, the very real crisis of the arts at the moment. That leads inevitably to the question of Government funding. The Minister carries the responsibility for the size and the nature of the subsidy. His success or failure will be measured by his ability to maintain or destroy what is, but only just is, this country's pre-eminent position in this sphere. I wish to urge upon him that his paramount task is to pursue with unremitting vigour the intellectual argument for a substantial shift upwards in the basic figure on which the arts are now founded.
The present basic figure has no rational basis. It is simply advanced as a percentage of some historic figure which itself was a percentage of some other sum similarly arrived at. The Minister's proclaimed message now is "Level pegging for the arts". I ask the noble Earl, does he believe that Turner's Fighting Temeraire was born of level pegging and, indeed, did level pegging bring forth King Lear? The Minister's budget is one half of 1 per cent. of total public expenditure, and it is one-fifth of that one-half which goes to fund the arts.
Therefore, the basic question that we have to consider is the Arts Council grant. Do we want, or can we afford, to carry on on the basis of level pegging? Every penny spent by the Arts Council is backed by a scrupulous budgeting examination. The Priestley scrutiny has totally justified the financial control of two major Arts Council clients and has found them to be hopelessly under-funded, as, indeed, the Select Committee found in regard to the arts in general. Year after year the Arts Council pointed out to a succession of Ministers and, indeed, to taxpayers, that its clients were mostly under-funded. Why? Year after year these scrupulous figures have been put forward by the Arts Council in relation to its clients, and they are cut down year after year by the Ministry. The result is that slowly, inexorably, arts organisations are grinding
750
down, and so the Arts Council is permanently engaged in deficit funding.
I should like to warn the Minister that there is now a widespread feeling of disillusion and even despair and discouragement among the clients of the Arts Council; and, indeed, at 105 Piccadilly. Standards are falling, new works are seen less and less, and touring is becoming a rarity; prices are being put up too high and the arts are increasingly becoming accessible only to the better off. In fact, Priestley's findings apply right across the board. "Write off the deficits, jack up the base rate by 17 per cent.", says Priestley, "or close down the institutions". I urge the Minister to follow the unavoidable logic of Priestley and to ensure that this time the Arts Council receives the absolute minimum that it requires—a rise of 20 per cent.
What are the Minister's priorities? As a Conservative, no doubt he is wedded to the concept of value for money. If he is not convinced by the validity of the quality of life argument, then let me put this to him. Where now is our national pride and self-respect best displayed? Would the Minister look around him here in the Palace of Westminster—who will be remembered longest: Barry and Pugin or the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate? It is, in fact, the genius, the imagination, the inventiveness, the ideas, the ideals, the creativity of this nation which will be its salvation. In other words, its culture. It is there that we shall ultimately look for an increase in the gross domestic product.
I urge the Minister to think bigger. Why not go boldly for 1 per cent. of public expenditure to go to the comprehensive support of the arts? We will not build a great country on level pegging.
6.58 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I listened with the greatest interest to my noble friend Lord Cottesloe and the figures which he quoted. I well remember when he succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Clark, of Saltwood, as chairman of the Arts Council and the figures which he gave were certainly very striking. As we have only a few minutes at our disposal, I shall merely ask my noble friend Lord Gowrie three questions, of which I have given him notice, on perhaps a rather narrow field concerning the theatre.
First, is he aware that the Chichester Festival Theatre, in which I declare an interest as the president of its trust, and which I think can claim to be the third most important theatre in the country after the National and the Royal Shakespeare at the Barbican, has for some years received not one penny from the taxpayer or from the Arts Council? This is the theatre which, in the early 1960s, was directed by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, and which indeed formed the nucleus of the National Theatre. We have tried to maintain those standards ever since.
Secondly, is my noble friend also aware that this theatre, seating 1,350 people, open 47 weeks in the year and playing to approximately I million people a year, is not even thought worthy of an Arts Council subsidy comparable to the 450-seat Royal Court, which now receives over £½ million a year from the Arts Council?

751
The fact remains that, to a great extent, the artistic elements at Chichester have subsidised the festival for years. It is difficult to justify actors on a salary or wage of the kind which an unskilled labourer receives—for that is what they get—and for 52 weeks of the year. Our directors and designers are also poorly paid in comparison with similar theatres. I believe that there is sympathy within the Government to aid the theatre industry by giving certain tax relief to investors—or, if you prefer, "angels". I know that the Government are pledged to encourage sponsorship of the arts, and they are certainly doing so.
If banks and other large business concerns can offset sponsorship by putting it through their advertising budgets, surely it would be fair and equitable for the private individual to set his investment against his overall tax burden. A friend of mine who presents plays in the West End of London receives a substantial amount of money for his productions from the United States, and any money lost in these ventures is allowed against the United States citizens' tax. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also made this point. All that I would ask my noble friend for is his comments on the three points which I have made.
7 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, art is long, life is short—and so is this debate. I must therefore confine myself to two simple points. The first is the position of the provinces. I do not want to take a single penny away from London. It is the centres of excellence in London which provide so much inspiration for their fellow artists in the provinces. I am thinking principally of the city where I was brought up—Manchester. In my youth it was a city rich in culture, and it was a culture created and maintained by an affluent and cosmopolitan middle-class.
Engels had put the surplus value of his textile business into Karl Marx, but the other Germans helped to create the HalléOrchestra. The profits of Horniman's tea went into Miss Horniman's Gaiety Theatre, the first repertory theatre in Britain. The profits of Beecham's pills enabled Sir Thomas to bring the British National Opera Company to Manchester at regular intervals. The top D'Oyly Carte Company came, and so did the Comedie-Francaise. Great actors came before taking their plays into London. Cochran tried out his reviews in Manchester, and we saw Bitter Sweet and Cavalcade by Noel Coward before London was given a chance to see them. And all around us were the most avant-garde amateur dramatic societies rejoicing in surrealism, expressionism and constructivism, and all the other fads of the day.
I do not think that Manchester is any richer in culture today than it was half a century ago. Indeed, I doubt whether it is as rich—and this despite public subsidies. Because if there remains a cultivated middle-class it is thinner on the ground than it used to be. Most of its members are the salaried employees of great corporations, and not private entrepreneurs, as they used to be, with liberty to dispose of their own capital gains in the endowment of the arts and the sustenance of charities. This is the big social change which has weakened the provinces and made subsidy necessary.
752
Manchester arts have to depend to a considerable extent on public funds; and their dependence is threatened, as noble Lords have pointed out, by the Government's decision to get rid of one important patron, the Greater Manchester City Council, although special provision is made for two or three of the Manchester institutions, One of these institutions, one of the glories of Manchester, is the Royal Exchange Theatre. I have seen some remarkable productions there, first-class productions, in the highest of the highest metropolitan standards. The whole theatre is in a building which recalls Manchester's lost pre-eminence in textiles; and it seems to have that happily excited social atmosphere which the Old Vic used to have and which the National Theatre is almost achieving now.
Yet the Royal Exchange Theatre is dependent on various sources, which includes an annual grant of over £300,000 from the metropolitan county.
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, like the Hallé Orchestra, the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester is also listed in the White Paper.
Lord Ardwick: Yes, it is listed, my Lords. If the noble Earl is assuring me that all the money which will be lost with the disappearance of the metropolitan council will be funded from a central source, I shall be relieved and I think a number of Manchester people will, too.
A noble Lord: The Minister nods his head.
Lord Ardwick: If that is the case, then I am very glad because any kind of idea that great national and international companies are going to sponsor provincial enterprises and give them the security that they have is just not on.
There have been pleas for an increase in the general expenditure on the arts, yet what seems a big sum absolutely is a small sum when seen as a percentage of what we spend on education. But there is always a fear of the philistines in public bodies. Governments always fear that if they go too far they will get on the wrong side of public opinion. Why should they spend all that money on a minority interest?—for it is still only a minority that looks at pictures, goes to museums. concerts and theatres. It is not easy to find utilitarian arguments. We have to fall back on the excellent argument that we heard a moment or two ago.
I am saying this because I was horrified to read something in the Standard last night. The words were:
"Most subsidies to the arts are a transfer of resources from the working-classes, both metropolitan and provincial, to the London upper and upper middle-classes.
"Why the hell should some striving bloke in Accrington subsidise the price of an opera ticket for a London client of a multinational company? That is the reality behind the windbaggery of the arts lobby."
This was not written by some "yobo": these are the words of Mr. Brian Walden, former Oxford scholar and president of the Oxford Union. They are not the words one would expect from somebody who has enjoyed a privileged and subsidised education. and who runs now the best minority feature—but very much a minority feature—in the whole of television.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I should like to take up just a couple of points raised in the debate. There is no doubt that there is some concern about the Government's proposals for the provincial museums after the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. One point I should like to make is that it is vitally important for museums, such as the Laing in Newcastle, near to which I live, and the Walker in Liverpool, that they should retain and further develop their own characters. If they are run from London by trustees of the Tate, surely some of the local character will be lost. There is a real worry about this from the museums' point of view, and I think it is a sensible worry. It would be unsatisfactory if such a thing happened. From conversations I have had, it is clear that both the London museums and the provincial museums are not entirely happy with those suggestions. Fortunately, however, my noble friend the Minister has made it clear that he is still very much open to suggestions. I should like to ask him whether he has considered the possibility of establishing for the provincial museums a system such as exists, for example, in regard to the Wallace Collection. The trustee system has served our museums very well, and I realise that there would be many initial problems to overcome. Clearly this is not the moment to discuss them but I hope that we shall hear from the Minister on that point.
The second point—or perhaps plea—is about the continuing crisis in the Oxford and Cambridge museums, of which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made mention. The other day I met Professor Jaffe, who told me that if the last round of cuts had been evenly distributed, the Fitzwilliam would have been brought to the verge of closure, and that further cuts would be catastrophic. It is sad, but it is a fact that the universities can no longer cope with funding these museums. The Fitzwilliam has had to close its doors on one day a week, and of course the V and A has, too; there may be other examples. Somehow the doors of our museums, for all our reasons that are being discussed here today, must be kept open. I hope that my noble friend will exercise all his undoubted skills to make sure that that happens.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I rise to echo the disquiet that many speakers today have expressed about what will happen to the arts in the event of the abolition of the GLC and of the metropolitan councils. I must needs declare an interest because I work for the GLC. I am its director of recreation and arts, but I hope your Lordships will believe that my personal employment prospects are of no importance whatever besides the crisis for the arts which I foresee looming for London. I shall speak only of London because that is what I know most about. But I see the Government's proposals as expressed in the White Paper as representing a serious blow to the arts in London. I cannot bring myself to think that it is a deliberate blow: I believe it to be unthinking.
What do these proposals amount to? First, there are mentioned in the report nine bodies which the Government clearly intend to maintain or go some
754
way to save. Predictably, they are institutions of such stature and such celebrity that their collapse would be a scandal which no Government would welcome. Even there, there is no guarantee whatever that the level of funding now provided by the GLC will be provided by the Government. It is worth noting that over the last six years in real terms the Arts Council's funds have increased by 22 per cent.; that in real termsis measured by the retail price index. The GLC's funds have increased by 144 per cent. in that time. Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this points merely to the profligacy of local government and to the good financial management of central Government, I think we should all remember that the arts in this country have never been well funded. We are fortunate in our arts and we have always been miserably ungenerous to them.
A few simple figures will suffice. I calculate that the French Government are exactly 10 times as generous to the arts as we are. It is true that in recent times Mr. Mitterrand at one blow doubled the arts budget of France. I conceive that it is possible that Mr. Mitterrand is not the noble Earl's ideal of political wisdom, but this stroke I commend to him firmly.
Berlin has a famous and brilliant orchestra. It is subsidised to the extent of 10 London orchestras funded at a rate which manages to keep them just at survival level. As for the most expensive art of all, opera, the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, manages to find 38 per cent. of a very considerable grant from the box office. La Scala manages 17 per cent., the Staatsoper in Vienna 16 per cent. and the Deutschoper in Berlin 15 per cent. Their subsidies are stupendous by comparison with ours. Let us not deceive ourselves that we have ever been generous with the arts. Dusseldorf alone has an opera house worth £30 million a year and that is equal to two English National Operas.
What else is contained in the Government's proposals? I thought I saw a moment of wonder because I noticed that the Government have acknowledged that the South Bank arts complex is powerful, indivisible, and vitally necessary to London. Imagine my dismay when I read that it was to be run as nearly as possible on commercial lines. The distinguished bodies that inhabit that South Bank already receive over £10 million in subsidy. Let nobody suppose that by increasing the seat prices one can reduce that. If one did that it would have two effects only; the first, would be to narrow the social scale of people who went there and the second would be to reduce the number of people who went there. There would be no financial benefit whatever.
Is it to be sponsorship? I invite your Lordships to look around. Anyone who has been to the Festival Hall will know that half the concerts there are already sponsored. There is scarcely a concert without the name of a great insurance company, a great bank or a great commercial company of some sort upon it. The BFI gets subsidy for its work in the National Film Theatre. The Hayward Gallery is sponsored. That cannot be the answer.
What of the museums? The Geffrye and the Horniman are supposed to be passed on elsewhere. I cannot for the life of me understand why. At the moment they are administered by the ILEA, but as the

755
Government proposes a central education authority, I cannot think why it does not continue to run them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked, what will happen to Ranger's House and Marble Hill, that most perfect of Palladian villas? There are so many unanswered questions. But most important of all is what will happen to the other 400 bodies that the GLC funds?—400 no less. The recipe is simply to pass the lot to the boroughs.
We know that the boroughs will not be able to bear this financial burden because there is rate capping over the horizon no less than before. If they were able, would all of them be willing? If we look at the pattern of borough funding of the arts over London, we can see that it ranges from 20 pence per head of population to over £2. There is no rationale behind it. Boroughs cannot be relied upon to pick up this tab.
I ask myself why it is that this recipe has been adopted by the Government. They could have suggested another quango. They could have suggested passing the necessary money to the Arts Council or to the Greater London Arts Association or a combination of both. But they did not. They said. "Let the boroughs take over all the arts in London except the nine". Could it be because only in the boroughs is there a remnant of democratic principle left in the administration of this money? But if to preserve that element of democracy it means chaos and ruin for the arts, that cannot be sensible.
In conclusion, surely what is needed is an authority that can strategically balance the needs of the arts across London and have some democratic accountability for the money it levies. At the moment the GLC manages to do that and I cannot for the life of me think why we should not be allowed to continue so to do.
7.16 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I have been gravely deceived by this debate. I thought it was to be about the situation in the arts. I had hoped that I would have some up-to-date news on the position of poets as the trumpets who sing to battle as the unacknowledged legislators of the world; but no such thing. The debate has been entirely about the economics of the arts and not about the arts themselves.
There are those who think that this is a necessary and complete connection between the two. Thirty years ago Wyndham Lewis wrote:
"If the cost of living must forever rise, it is equally a law of this time that the cultural standard must fall. As you get a pound of coffee rising in price, you may be sure that, at the same time, the quality of painting or music is taking a drop downhill of the same amount".
There is no doubt that inflation has continued since Wyndham Lewis's time. I am not sure how many noble Lords would support the strict relationship which he thought applied between the quality of art and public funding for it, or, indeed, the inflation rate. But there is a connection and it is a connection that is important to this debate as well. The fundamental thing that we must look to avoid in our approach both to the quality of art and to the funding of art is elitism. I want to suggest to the House that it is élitism which will be encouraged by the actions of the Government
756
in the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
Élitism is partly a matter of the traditional stance of those better off in this world who actually do not like the idea that arts or anything else should be available to ordinary people. The demand for improved road provision came when the working classes started to have motor-cars and interfered with the pleasant motoring which the upper classes had known in the 1930s. The present troubles which affect the National Health Service exist because ordinary people are demanding the standards of health which, until recently, were only available to the few. In the arts this is typified by Constant Lambert describing the appalling popularity of music. Many people do not like the idea that arts should be more available to more people. I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, very eloquently supported the view that as well as quality we should be talking about marketing and access.
What is the answer to this problem of élitism in the arts? I suggest that there is no single answer and there is certainly no answer which will create better art. The present debate taking place in and about the literature panel of the Arts Council is evidence of that. There are those who say that funding for literature should be funding for authors of approved works of literature or of works of literature which may become approved. I take the view, and I think that the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, would do so as well, that that is the wrong approach; that the approach should be on the marketing of literature and improved access to literature; in other words, any resources available for literature should go to help readers and not to make elitist decisions about who is good and who is not good, and which authors are worthy of direct funding.
But there is, if not a single answer, an approach which I commend to your Lordships. That is the approach of pluralism both in art itself and in funding of arts. That is the sense in which I think it is important that we should not, for the political reasons of abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, lose the pluralism and the concentration on access which the GLC, in particular, has given over the last few years.
There are many people—and I speak in the hearing of the Director of Recreations and Arts of the GLC and the chairman of the GLC's arts committee—who make fun of many of the individual grants which the GLC has given to community arts and to ethnic arts. No doubt, in the nature of things, there will be examples where that making of fun can be justified. But the fact is that the GLC gives grants to something over 300 artistic bodies in the course of the year and only 2 per cent. of those bodies—I think it is eight, in fact—get any assistance whatsoever from central Government.
The GLC is therefore performing a function in making the arts more generally available—and not just new kinds of arts, but making traditional arts available as in the case of orchestral concerts in the canteen of the Ford Works at Dagenham. It is performing a function which central Government cannot, of its nature, perform. The abolition of the GLC, without some democratically controlled, publicly accountable, locally accountable, alternative, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has made clear, would be a disaster for

757
the arts in London. I urge the Government to think about these aspects of the problem as well as about the narrow political concern.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I should like to follow those noble Lords who have spoken about the theatre and, more specifically, I should like to make two points on the subject of the problems of the regional repertory theatres. I have to declare an interest in that, like the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I am president of the Redgrave Theatre Trust. The Redgrave is a small provincial theatre at Farnham in Surrey. It has a resident company, mounts 15 productions each year and plays to an average 70 per cent. audience for 52 weeks a year. It is a very imaginative theatre. For instance, two years ago the Redgrave staged the first professional production of "Cavalcade" since the original to coincide with the 50th anniversary. This production included some 300 amateurs, in addition to the resident company, drawn from 80 amateur dramatic societies within the catchment area. In fact, it put the Redgrave Theatre not only on the national scene but on the international scene.
Of course, we receive grants from the Arts Council and from the local authorities, especially Waverley, in whose area Redgrave exists. We are most grateful for that support. But inevitably there is an air of uncertainty about the future which is causing concern. If the grants were diminished, the Redgrave would survive because it has generated enthusiasm and support locally. But what it would do would be to alter the programme to some three or four productions only and it would also reduce the variety of the productions, which at present range from Ayckbourn to Shaw to Shakespeare, and include at least one full-scale musical a year. Without this support, it would be a poor bill of fare indeed.
Perhaps a more important aspect is that the regional repertory theatres in general are the training ground both for the commercial theatre in the West End and for the national subsidised theatre, both of which, as has been mentioned, are major tourist attractions. It is also a source of talent for television, which has an even bigger appetite. Stars may be created by the media but great actors come only from the live theatre. There are no great actors who have not started their lives in repertory theatre. Indeed, that includes two noble Lords who are Members of your Lordships' House.
The regional repertory theatres provide the seed corn for the future and not only in terms of performers but also concerning the technical aspects such as stage management and design. Repertory theatres also provide an essential opening for new plays and for new playwrights. It is, as I have said, the home and seed corn for the future of drama on the world stage. Regional repertory theatres provide careers for many areas and disciplines within this world of arts, and I believe are worthy of continued recognition and support.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I propose to confine my few remarks to one of the arts which has
758
not so far been mentioned in your Lordships' debate; that is the art of film. The art of film, despite its very remarkable achievement in this country, curiously enough remains somewhat the Cinderella of the arts in vivid contrast to the position in other film-making countries where leading film makers are regarded as foremost among the creative artists of their time. It is, however, accepted I think in this country as well as in others that there are a certain number of films which require support to get off the ground. This is especially the case where young or completely unknown talent is concerned. Although a great deal has been spoken about subsidies this evening, I am not speaking about subsidies in this connection but rather of help by way of redistribution of the available resources.
If one looks at the Eady money as a system, one can see that that is exactly what it does. It relies upon a levy upon the box office receipts. This system has been in operation since 1948. Now it is threatened, or appears to be threatened; and that is what I wish to refer to. We all recognise the weakness of the Eady money. Its actual quantum has been reduced very considerably owing to the decline in cinema attendances over the years, but in particular the burden of paying the Eady money falls entirely on the exhibitors' element, the cinema owners. And, as is generally recognised, it is they in their sector who are least able to bear this burden.
I think it would be universally accepted that we have in this country an extraordinary abundance of young talent. Speaking if I may, as the chairman of the National Film and Television School, I think I am in a fairly good position to assess the extraordinarily high talent that exists and how strongly motivated are those able young people to contribute to what has been generally recognised over the last year or two as a renaissance in the film world. The difficulty is that once young talent is recognised, that is all right; they may then find support in the commercial market. The real problem is how to make that talent visible to the commercial sector.
This is where there is need for a commercial judgment which is geared to evaluate and encourage new talent. With this function, we have at the moment the National Film Finance Corporation—the NFFC. This has been doing an extremely good job with the very limited resources available to it by way of a slice of the Eady money. I suggest that the Government are at the threshold of the rebirth of what has recently been a sagging industry. At this moment they can either make or break that industry. I verily believe that it is their desire to make it; but what I fear is that if some of the present thinking should prevail, even with the best intentions in the world, the effect will be to break, rather than make the industry.
Undoubtedly, the film world is, and always has been, hopelessly divided on practically every issue; but at the moment there is almost total unanimity that the elimination of the Eady money, together with the elimination of the National Film Finance Corporation, would leave an absolutely unfillable hiatus, and there would be no avenue to enable young talent to be recognised and so ensure the future of this great art and industry.
I could give numerous examples of the manner in which the NFFC has contributed in this way, but time

759
does not permit. All I can really say is that there is a certain irony in the fact that the survival of the film industry can he assured without costing the Treasury a penny. It simply needs understanding and political will, and no party issue whatever is involved. Everyone, surely, has a stake in the future of this great industry, with its immense international prestige and substantial export market. All important figures in the film industry have recently joined together to urge upon the Government that they should not extinguish both the Eady money and the NFFC and put nothing in their places. If they do that, they will at the same time extinguish the hopes and aspirations of our greatest need, which is the availability of abundant young creative talent, and they will simply drive them elsewhere—to Hollywood, Australia, or wherever it may be.
I believe that the Government genuinely desire to see a flourishing and creative industry, but I share the fears of those who think that those good intentions may be translated into a devastating blow. I can only add that I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to say something which will put aside the gloomy note on which. unfortunately, I feel constrained to conclude.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, because of shortage of time I must confine my few remarks to the future of the Kenwood Collection, in which I naturally take a grandfilial interest. Since 1951 the gallery has been administered, first, by the LCC, and then by its successor, the GLC. I have no criticisms of the way in which the councils have looked after it, but only praise for their choice of the three successive and admirable curators who have been in charge during the 32 years of the councils' responsibilities.
It had been proposed that, on the disappearance of the GLC, the gallery should be funded by central Government—which is quite right—but only through the Victoria and Albert Museum. If I may say so, I can think of no better, nor more benevolent whale, if Kenwood must indeed he swallowed up. But the Victoria and Albert already has Apsley House, Osterley, Bethnal Green, and Ham House on its plate—since such a civilised whale can surely be said to eat off a plate.
The Friends of Kenwood have suggested to the Minister that because the gallery is anyway to be funded by central Government, it should be through a board of trustees of its own. I therefore went with the chairman of the Friends to see the Minister last week. He gave us a most sympathetic hearing, but naturally without giving any commitment at this stage.
If it should be objected that Kenwood is smaller than most national museums, I would point out that it is probably larger in acreage than the Wallace Collection, and, while the values of collections are rather imponderable, the latest evaluation shows Kenwood's at £16 million. The attendances at Kenwood have always been larger than those at the Wallace Collection, in spite of the distance of Hampstead from central London.
760
We think that there could he economies to be made by the change, especially by eliminating the roundabout running of Marble Hill and Ranger's House from Kenwood. Geography and commonsense would seem to indicate the merging of Marble Hill with Ham House away to the west, just across the river, with only the width of the river in between—and linked by an agreeable ferry service, I am told, on instant call. Ranger's House is away to the east, near Greenwich, and could be linked with the Maritime Museum. In any case, for decisions to have to go up from Kenwood to the Victoria and Albert, rather than be settled by trustees on the spot is surely circuitous and a waste of time. Incidentally, many suitable people have offered to serve as trustees.
It is perhaps appropriate to mention that Kenwood is very much a living gallery. A loan exhibition of an 18th century painter is held there every year. Acquisitions are made with the help of the Friends and the National Art-Collections Fund. Variety and initiative are shown in the gallery's policy, which independence would surely foster. I should like to thank the Minister for the hearing that he gave us last week, and to express the hope that he will make the decision that is sought by the many friends of Kenwood.
7.38 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I, too, should like to talk about film because I am a humble worker therein and have been one for 25 years; and film is very topical nowadays. This debate is indeed concerned with the situation in the arts, and my noble friend will be pleased to hear that I shall not be troubling him for funding: at least, not directly. Film is very interesting now. A good revival of British films is taking place, and indeed the whole matter is under review by Kenneth Baker. It has got its nasty side—the video nasties—but they are really only 38 in number and quite out of all proportion to the 35,000 thoroughly decent films that one can now hire.
What I want to say in a nutshell is this. Film is an art form of ever-increasing sophistication, watched by ever-increasing numbers of people, but they spend an ever-decreasing amount of money to watch film. Therefore our industry is artistically healthy, but financially not so hot. What I mean by "sophistication" is this. Over the last 30 years film has undergone a process of compression and elision. For instance, put very simply, some 30 years back it took us 12 separate camera set-ups to move an actor from, say, Bristol to Dover; and now we can do it in two. Even a great film like "The Third Man", which seemed so fast, compulsive and mysterious in 1949 when it was made, is now a slow and rather obvious film. But not so "Smiley's People". That is a film of the '80s—succinct, powerful and mysterious. The whole science has developed greatly.
Also, it has developed technically. I would not have believed it possible that there could be a film lens small enough to travel up the human fallopian tube, but that shot has been taken. It could not have been envisaged 30 years ago. Nor, indeed, could the Wagnerian legend of "Star Wars", with mind-boggling space-age monsters and gadgetry, and a sound track magnificent in its complexity. There are no longer three sound

761
tracks; it is no longer a case of dialogue, music and effects; it is a glorious entity.
Perhaps the ultimate is "Koyaanisqatsi". That is an abstract film of dazzling brilliance with an interesting score by Philip Glass. It has no story whatsoever, but it seems to be all the stronger for that. So what I am really saying is that we are progressing, and I believe that it is a very healthy industry, artistically.
But now I switch to the audiences. As I said, they are paying much less. In fact, they are paying £46 to the BBC, they are paying 25p per head for a video, and, of course, nothing to ITV. With so much quality film available in their own homes, it does indeed stand to reason that they will not go out to the cinema. Indeed, the average person goes out to it only one-and-a-half times a year. Yet it is only these cinemagoers who contribute to future British film production in the way of the Eady levy.
I believe that the levy produces £1½ million for the National Film Finance Corporation. That is a very small sum, but it is indeed useful for young directors. For example, I believe that "Gregory's Girl" cost only £½ million, as did "Local Hero", which I believe my noble friend saw recently at the Inn on the Park. The sum off £1½ million for Eady is not only not enough, but I would say that it was illogically raised from what I call the dinosaur's belly of the Odeon in Bognor Regis.
I have faith in the artistic integrity of British film and its young directors, and, far from abolishing Eady, far from abolishing the National Film Finance Corporation, I would say extend Eady to all film outlets, including those 1,600 films shown each year on television which, at the moment, cost nothing to view. I would also introduce a levy on blank tapes. This is happening in Sweden. where I gather it works quite well.
In that way the National Film Finance Corporation or the British Film Corporation (call it what you will) would have a meaningful income of perhaps £25 million a year; and I dare say that the British Film Institute's income could be raised in the same way, which is perhaps more relevant to my noble friend. In that way—and I honestly believe only in that way—the splendid progression over the past 30 years of the art of the British film will continue.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I must first say that, as the noble Earl, the Minister, is due to rise at 7.55, your Lordships, by your modesty and your brevity, have been kind enough to leave me rather more than my ration of six minutes in which to attempt the rather impossible task of endeavouring to sum up the debate from this side of the House. However, since I have a little more time than I thought I was going to have, I shall have a shot at it.
I hope that the Minister will give very close attention to what he has heard here this evening and, if he is not disposed to give to the eloquence of my noble friend all the absolute assent that we might hope—because he will reasonably say that matters coming from this side of the House perhaps carry a party political aspect to them—I hope that he will give special attention to what he has heard from his own side of the House and from the other Benches. I hope that he will pay close
762
attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, said. I also hope that he will have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said from the Cross-Benches, and that he will not entirely dismiss the eloquence of my noble friends on this side of the House.
I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, say that he was received so well by the Minister recently. I am to have the privilege of visiting the Minister myself on Monday. He has been kind enough to receive a delegation which I am leading from the Theatres Advisory Council and I am encouraged by what the noble Lord has said. We shall not be dealing with the political aspects of the matter on that occasion. The Theatres Advisory Council is essentially a non-party organisation and, for that reason, we shall be endeavouring to deal with the details of the problem, to take up specific issues and to ask for changes in the areas where the Government have indicated that they are prepared to look at changes.
In their document, which is headed The Abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils: The Government's Proposals Jar the Arts, they say that they:
"invite views and comments on the proposals set out in paragraphs 6 to 10".
Your Lordships will notice that the Government are not inviting any comment at all on their general proposition; that is what they propose to do. All they wish to hear from us are comments on matters of detail. The general proposition they are adhering to. Tonight, I want to talk on the general issue, as on Monday I shall be dealing with the detail.
I have no doubt that the Government's intentions towards the arts are as good as anyone's, but, as with so many other things, the trouble is that the Government's dogma and doctrine defeat and destroy their good intentions. That ought not to be so, but this is a highly dogmatic and doctrinal Government. I say that it ought not to be so, because the GLC and the metropolitan county councils were created by a Conservative Government.
It seems to me that Sir Keith Joseph, when in 1962 he told the House of Commons that,
"all other needs affecting the whole of Greater London should he made the responsibility of a directly elected Greater London Council",
was speaking more in accordance with what I understand to be Conservative Party philosophy than are the Government today. I am no expert on that, but, as I shall show in a moment, I have read something about it and it seems to me that Sir Keith's view was more in line with what was traditionally expected from a Conservative Government than are the present proposals.
The Government are about to seek to destroy these authorities which were created by their own party. I remember sitting up all night, when I was a member of the London County Council, trying to stop them from creating the GLC. I believed—and I still believe—the LCC to be an excellent authority and I did not want to see the expansion to this larger body.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the Government, in not seeking any democratic substitute

763
at all, but seeking to abolish democracy altogether, are acting against the principles of Conservatism as much as against the principles of Socialism. Indeed, they are acting against the principles of parliamentary democracy in itself, because parliamentary democracy does not say that all power shall rest in the centre. Centralism is not part of the Conservative philosophy as I understand it, and I am very sorry that the Tory party is travelling in that direction now.
There are those who believe that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has produced the document entitled The Abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils of his own free will. I find that difficult to believe, because I am convinced that the noble Earl is not malevolent or stupid. Indeed, I have some evidence to the contrary—and here I must declare an interest. Recently, as director of the Theatres Trust, I asked the noble Earl to increase the tiny grant which enables that body to exist upon a shoestring in order to help to preserve the fabric of theatres—the bricks and mortar—and keep theatres as theatres. That is what this body tries to do. We did not get what we asked for. Who does? But our precious £10,000 has been increased to £11,000, which will enable us to survive for another year and, more important, keep the theatres' shoes on their feet. We shall try, anyway.
So what has persuaded this well-intentioned Minister to issue a document which he must know is without rhyme or reason and which, if put into effect, would sound the death knell for much artistic activity all over the country? The noble Earl may say that this is a consultative document. But the intention is firm. Only the details are for discussion. It stems from the Government's White Paper, called Streamlining the Cities. In my opinion, it should have been entitled Castrating the Cities. The Minister says that he will look to the borough and district councils to carry out the arts responsibilities, but he must know that in some cases they have not the intention to do so and in others they have not the power. In many cases they have neither the facilities nor the resources—and certainly not the money. Many small organisations will therefore slip through this process and are bound to collapse. Great harm is bound to be done all over the country.
Many of the major achievements in the arts are attributable to the metropolitan councils. Their creation was to that extent attributable to Conservative genius. Let us be generous and make it clear that they have created something which they are now about to destroy. This would be a very great shame indeed. Instead of going to local authorities, who cannot possibly handle them, the Government have picked out some organisations and said, "We know, of course, that local authorities cannot handle these bodies, but we shall give special responsibility to the Arts Council to take them over". Well, now, what are they doing? They are removing local responsibility for these activities. It is a responsibility which ought to be locally exercised. The Manchester Exchange Theatre will not be as good an organisation if it is wholly financed by the Arts Council as it is if it has got some Manchester money in it. At the moment it receives £300,000-worth of Manchester money, which is better
764
for the Manchester Exchange Theatre than central Government money. That, I should have thought, was part of Tory Party philosophy.
I must share with the Minister the extra few minutes we have available, and certainly I must not exceed my own time, but, when I read The Case for Conservatism, written many years ago by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the basis of the Conservative Party's philosophy appeared to me to be democracy, devolution and pluralism. The proposals are against all three propositions. They ought to be taken back and looked at again. I hope that tonight the Minister will say that he is going to do so.
7.54 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, not only for the pertinent matters he raised and the cogent way in which he raised them, but also for attracting so many speakers to a short debate. I propose to make a few general remarks about the principal themes which have come up this evening and then deal as best I can in the time available with specific points directed at me. If I fail, I beg the indulgence of the House, since so far I seem to have escaped short debates. I shall of course write to noble Lords, if need be.
The big issues facing the world of the arts in Britain, and, indeed, facing my Ministry, are money: the overall level of support for arts bodies and organisations—and the effects of local government reorganisation. Obviously the two are linked. The noble Lord who opened the debate raised them and most noble Lords have touched upon them.
Before touching on them myself, could I warn the House, however, against the tendency—increasingly prevalent in the world of arts organisations—to identify their world, which is loosely summed up in the phrase "the arts", with artistic activity generally. I am very glad that from the other side of the House the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey (himself abolished by the GLC, as it were) appeared to recognise this. Please remember that central Government and local government spending on the arts is only a part of the arts estate. At home and abroad, British people are writing books and plays, and winning Nobel prizes for them—all honour and gratitude to Mr. Golding. They are publishing, selling and performing in them.
The same applies to music and film, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and my noble friend Lord Mersey. And all honour to David Puttnam and Sir Richard Attenborough and their colleagues for winning Hollywood Oscars for Britain two years in succession. The same goes for our painting and sculpture. The same goes for dance and the other performing arts. All the major newspapers cover the arts. Radio and television are deeply involved, as patrons and promoters. When we compare central Government spending on the arts in this country with spending on the arts in other countries (as, quite fairly, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, did in his speech) we must remember that the BBC spends about £100 million a year on arts and entertainment, and the various commercial stations not much less. We do have God's plenty, as Dryden said of Chaucer's poetry. All this is in addition to

765
central Government spending, with which I am concerned. I am concerned with only a small part of the estate, but an important part—the manor, if you like. I am determined to keep the building in good repair, but, if I am to add to it, the outlying farms, as elsewhere in the economy, will have to generate some more income. This said, let me come back to the pervading issue of money.
As a matter of general philosophy and of intention, I do not dissent from the view that the arts are less well funded in Britain by comparison with some other European countries. That is one of the reasons why I endorse not merely with loyalty but with passion the central aim of the Government's economic policy, which is to improve Britain's economic performance on a sustained and sustainable basis. That is why I make no apologies for identifying (as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, upbraided me for identifying) most firmly with the Treasury approach. Improved performance can only be good for the arts, and not much that is good can be achieved or sustained without it. Improved performance depends on there being limitations on public spending, including some limitations on public spending on the arts, whose needs are not finite and could without much strain absorb pretty well whatever resources were directed at them. I also urge the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, not to confuse the interests of individual artists with the interests of arts organisations, overwhelmingly as these are concentrated in the cost intensive field (as they have to be) of the performing arts.
Nevertheless, within these overall limitations definite improvements have been achieved and can he achieved. As a Government we are committed to maintaining the level of support for the arts, if we can, as well as to making efforts to supplement this income from other sources. Several noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and my noble friend Lord Haig, mentioned sponsorship in this connection. I am glad to say that business sponsorship should touch £15 million this year, as against about £½ million six or seven years ago. This growth must continue. I have strengthened my own very small and stretched department in order to help such bodies as the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. Our promissory note to the electorate, our manifesto, said:
"We shall keep up the level of Government support, including a fair share for the regions".
I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said in this connection about local self-help. As Minister, I do not promise more than that—much as I should like the acclaim which would go with it. But I do not promise less. I, too, can be teak-bottomed, like Lord Annan's vice-chancellors.
But I do ask to be judged by actions rather than promises, so let us look at what has been achieved so far. The Government have decided to increase our previously-planned provision (set out in last year's White Paper) for the arts, museums and libraries programme for next year, 1984–85. The 1984–85 provision will now be £595 million—a rounded £10 million higher than the previous plans for next year. This includes a modest (as in present circumstances it should be) but I would hope welcome real increase in
766
the central Government element. It allows for a small upward revision of the existing plans for local authority current expenditure on libraries and museums next year.
I also hope to make an additional increase of provision to meet some of the needs of the opera companies, as indicated by the Priestley report on the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company, as well as the Royal Shakespeare Company itself. Of course, this sum will also be modest; and, of course, needs outstrip resources in this as in other fields. Nevertheless, this is real progress in every sense.
A number of noble Lords have in this context raised the issue of direct funding, notably my noble friend Lord Eccles. My general inclination is against direct funding of the performing arts. The long-held principle in the United Kingdom is for arm's length contact between the Minister and the bodies he funds, through, for instance, the Arts Council. But as the Priestley report suggests, there is equally a case for looking rather separately at our major companies of international standing and for allocating our grants to them on an earmarked basis within the Arts Council's total grant. This is one of the issues I shall shortly be considering.
I am not yet ready to announce the detailed allocations of my revised central Government programme for next year, and I must resist the temptations of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to do so. I hope to do so before Christmas. Meanwhile, it would not be prudent to assume that whatever percentage increase between 1983–84 and 1984–85 applies to my programme as a whole will be distributed exactly equally among all the bodies. I must take account of, and make a judgment about, the incidence of needs and priorities.
As to the fiscal matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others—notably my noble friend Lord Haig—we debated those matters very fully a few days ago, and I hope that my reply to that debate will answer also for this evening. I am afraid that I must say to my noble friend Lord Haig that I cannot hold out much hope of changes on VAT.
Mention has been made of this year's 1 per cent. cut in arts funding. In August this year cuts of about 2 per cent. were made in all areas of public spending to correct a threatened overrun. I have to say that subsequent events seem to me to have wholly vindicated the Chancellor's proposal, but it was very tough going at the time. I strongly resist suggestions (mainly, I am happy to say, made outside this House) that I failed to protect my arts clients. Of course I appreciate the very real problems which an unexpected cut of any kind caused them. But I was at least able to protect them by restricting the cut to 1 per cent.—nasty, but nicer than 2 per cent.
I was able to do that by postponing the building start of the Theatre Museum until after April 1984, when next year's money comes in. I was able to protect the interests of the Theatre Museum by finding a generous private donor—an angel in every sense of the word—and I am glad to say that the building contracts should be let in the next few days. I have made mistakes as a Minister, and will doubtless make others, but this, in my view, was not one of them.

767
The Arts Council passed on the 1 per cent. cut to all its clients. There has been substantial complaint about this—and I sympathise, sincerely and not in the manner of the walrus, with the complaining. Nevertheless, I have not heard of any company or other body getting into unredeemable financial difficulties as a result of the cut. I have sought to make amends, too, by returning, as I have said, to last year's baseline as the starting-point for our plans for next year's spending.
Before I leave this point, I want to say that I have seen it reported that the finance director of the Arts Council believes that the Government behaved "dishonourably" in respect of this cut. If that is the case, the charge is ridiculous. All projected public spending is always conditional. It is conditional on the availability of resources. If resources are not available, or if other needs arise, Parliament is the arbiter of change.
Of course, I sympathise with the desire of arts organisations to know where they are and plan accordingly and sensibly. I like to know where I am myself. But we are all circumscribed by the total economy, both national and international, and it is surely absurd to pretend we are not. This criticism made, I wholeheartedly welcome the Arts Council's recognition, in their recent letter to clients, that the bodies they support are on leasehold, not freehold. It is inevitable that if new calls are to be met, or some clients are to get more money, other clients should be looked at in terms of their record or their need. Even with greater levels of funding overall there will inevitably be disappointments, inequities and rows.
I come now to the issue of the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils, and its possible effect on arts funding. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and by other noble Lords, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood; the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick; and my noble friends Lord Crathorne and Lord Moyne, in respect of the Kenwood Museum.
As our consultative document makes clear, we will look to local borough and district councils to assume most arts responsibilities. This policy is causing widespread anxiety among arts bodies and museums presently funded in whole or in part by the GLC and the MCCs. It would be wrong of me not to acknowledge those anxieties. All proposals for change can make individuals and organisations anxious, but it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the fact all the same.
I can give some reassurance, although I do so cautiously as in my political experience reassurances also give rise to anxieties. What people want first is the status quo guaranteed permanently; and, second, improvements to the status quo permanently guaranteed. As most artists, if not most arts organisations, would recognise, this is not the stuff of mortal kind. But with this caution, I can give some reassurance.
In the first place, local government reorganisation is not a complicated method of economising on arts funding by central Government. And central Government will continue to make resources available to local authorities even if adjustments in the method of
768
distributing RSG are made. In the second place, the consultation paper is just that. My proposals are not immutable, and my consultation paper really does mean a genuine openness to other views and proposals. It also recognises clearly that it would be unfair to expect one or even several district or borough councils to provide the resources for national bodies, such as the South Bank complex in London or the Hallé Orchestra in Manchester—and what a more considerable achievement that orchestra is than the works of Engels!
When you take into account withdrawal of the costs of listed bodies, and the fund increases for district and borough councils due to the abolition of upper-tier authorities, you will see that there is no reason why the situation should not be better rather than worse. In the third place, the shortfall to be made up after reorganisation by borough and district councils is not insuperable. In London, for example—and this point was concentrated upon in the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett—the amount currently spent in this year by the GLC on arts activities which will not be designated from central Government support will be about one-sixth of the GLC arts budget for the year. I am convinced that this gap, and greater gaps elsewhere, can be filled by a plurality of funding. Local government, central Government, box offices, sponsorship and patronage all have a part to play.
I welcome the support given to this pluralism by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe. With goodwill, with recognition that arts activities are cost-effective in terms of employment and creating an attractive infrastructure, with increasing awareness that the arts are more of an industry than a service, plurality of purpose can be translated into a plurality of necessary funds. There is no reason why not; no diminution of central Government funding or goodwill. Local authorities who take their arts responsibilities seriously will find us eager to help in every way that we can.
In conclusion, I must say that it may well be that some arts institutions affected by these changes, however worthy in themselves, will not persuade local authorities to fund them, of local electorates of their necessity. There are penalties as well as benefits in increasing local democratic accountability, and I would remind the House that in this the arts affected by reorganisation are in no different case from arts bodies in the rest of Britain. I do not accept that Cardiff Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Norwich, Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham or Plymouth are cultural deserts. There is no inherent reason, given the level and variety of resouces proposed, why areas unlike those affected by the changes should not similarly resist erosion.
I have listened most carefully to the debate. It is part of the general consultative process which does not end until the end of January. I will then take some time in weighing up the consultations before coming to conclusions; and I am sure that your Lordships will wish to return to this again.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords from all parts of the House who have taken part in the debate, and also the Minister for his

769
very full reply. I must say that I have never known such a full consensus of opinion in any arts debate as there has been in this one. We are very grateful to the noble Earl for his full reply, which we shall study. I was slightly disappointed by one omission. He referred in passing to Oxford and Cambridge, but he said nothing about the university museums, nor about Dulwich, which I thought was one of the main points in my speech.
All I am asking for at the moment is that perhaps he will direct his mind—his very brilliant mind, if I may say so—to this problem, because I think that this is something which needs attention. It is very important, in particular from the security point of view. Perhaps he will get in touch with me, and I shall be very happy to go to see him to talk about it. With that, my Lords, I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Amusement Machines Bill [H.L.]
8.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. At the outset I would wish to express my gratitude to the noble Lords on the Benches opposite and on the Cross-Benches, who, since this Bill was ordered to be printed, have evinced considerable interest and have also drawn to my attention certain drafting effects which impinge upon the principle of the Bill. Taking those into account, it is proposed that the incidence of the Bill should be confined to 5p and 10p machines, which is the legal limit under the Gaming Act. These are machines to which, under this Bill, certain provisions of the Gaming Act will no longer continue to apply.
The very broad picture is that at present in an average amusement arcade the Gaming Act applies to about 60 per cent. of the machines, while it does not apply to 40 per cent. of the video type, or electronic, machines. Under the revised definition as proposed by the Bill, in the average amusement arcade the Gaming Act would apply to about 40 per cent. of the machines—those which take less than 5p—and this Bill would apply to about 60 per cent. of the machines. Of course there is no such thing as the average amusement arcade. I merely attempt to draw with a broad brush on a wide canvas the kind of perspective needed to show the incidence of the Bill.
Therefore the proposal is to carry appropriate amendments at Committee stage to limit the incidence of the Bill in that way by inserting in the definition clause—Clause 1(2)—the qualifying words,
"of the value in aggregate of five new pence or more for a single operation of the machine".
That would have a consequential effect on Clause 1(4), where similar words would have to be inserted before the proviso. In the result within the range of the five and 10 new pence machines, but not below, the incidence of Section 34 and Schedule 9 of the Gaming Act will be ousted. Thus a single effective system of licensing and control of the five and 10 new pence machines may be provided and enforced—and I say "enforced", because there is no effective enforcement
770
at the moment—by the local authority where such machines are on premises to which the public have access. If the public does not have access to the premises, the provisions of the Bill cannot bite in any event.
Apart from the mandatory requirement to seek to ensure that access is proscribed to those under 16, unless accompanied by a guardian or parent, a wide discretion is conferred on local authorities to impose conditions. That is contained in Clause 2(1) of the Bill. This relates to the conduct of business on the premises, including hours of opening and closing, supervisory staff in attendance, adequate illumination, and such like.
Under Clause 2(2) the local authority is also given a very wide discretion to grant, refuse, or revoke a licence for breach of condition. As regards grant or refusal, community considerations, such as the interests of the neighbourhood, the sufficiency of machines in the locality and the character of the applicant or the operator may all be taken into account. That is not the case today. In such regard the exercise of the administrative discretion by the local authority under Clause 2 will be subject, of course, to judical review which would prevent, as a matter of public administrative law, an unreasonable exercise of the discretion.
As to enforcement, under Clause 3 the local authority may institute proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction, which both as regards conviction and sentence will be subject to all the usual appellate procedures.
On drafting there is some tidying up to be done to make it plain that the licence referred to in Clause 1(1) relates to the premises—attaches to the premises—and to remove Section 32 from Clause 1(4). As the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, pointed out to me—and I am so grateful to him—that was included in error, and I confess it. Transitional provisions must be introduced by way of new subsections (5) and (6) in Clause 1 to avoid oppression or hardship to commercial interests.
Those who have carried on business for at least two years prior to the commencement of the Bill after it becomes an Act should not be subject to the imposition of conditions under Clause 2(2)(b) as to the number and lay-out of machines, or Clause 2(2)(a) and (b) in regard to grounds of refusal based on detrimental effect to the neighbourhood and sufficiency of machines in the locality. Also if the local authority grants the licence—it has a discretion to do so—it must not take these matters into account. But if it grants the licence, it must be a licence for two years. Such is the proposal to avoid hardship or oppression.
There is also, of course, on the tidying up exercise, a new Clause 4 which must be introduced to cover appropriate financial provision to enable the Secretary of State to defray expenses out of money provided by Parliament, to vary the limit of the prescribed fee referred to in Clause 1, and to enable fees to be paid into the Exchequer.
The definition of "amusement machines" is new. By amendment, to which I have spoken, it would include the 5 and 10 new pence gaming machines, to which Part III of the Gaming Act 1968 already applies, and also the new video machines to which that

771
Act does not apply but if, and only if, the public have access. I give a brief word of explanation. The siting of a single machine on premises to which the public have access would require a licence for such premises. The effect of the definition is also to exclude machines which provide no element of advantage other than the mere pleasure of the single operation. In this I have not followed the contrary concept in Section 34(3)(d) of the Gaming Act.
As to the merits, I have no interest whatever to declare other than my personal concern; a concern which since I tabled a Question for answer in your Lordships' House has been reflected by urban local authorities, the national and provincial press, the police, churches, voluntary associations, the National Council on Gaming, and Gamblers Anonymous which says that one in five of its clients are young teenage addicts. under the age of 16. They are addicts of these arcades.
On 26th October when the Question came before your Lordships' House, this concern which I felt, and which was felt by all these institutions, was reflected on the floor of your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—who was particularly concerned about the planning aspect—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, among others. The right reverend Prelate asked the Minister whether he was aware that,
"the National Council for Social Aid, which is one of the General Synod Councils of the Church of England, is producing a new document concerning gambling? Moreover, in an advance copy there is reference to the indiscriminate spread of gaming machines and the deliberate appeal to excitment and excess".—[Official Report, 26/10/83; col. 251.]
That was the way, at that time, that the right reverend Prelate expressed his concern.
The concern is twofold. First, it is concern for those under the age of 16 who stand like zombies before these newfound gods, some of whom are tempted to petty crime and others to casual sex to find the ready cash with which to feed their addiction. In this context, although licensed premises are excluded from the Bill, is it not fair to point out that as regards enforcement there does not appear to have been too much difficulty in enforcing the age condition on access to premises where intoxicating liquor is sold to the public?
The second aspect of concern—to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, spoke: the planning aspect—is concern for the community which in this regard is truly ill-served because planning law is only concerned with change of use. Already the Minister, on appeal, has overturned some 30 cases where the local authority has refused planning permission for amusement arcades. Indeed, there is one applicant who has won appeals in respect of 11 amusement centres in London against strong local opposition. In several cases there was already an amusement arcade in the same street which had already been a source of trouble. At the time of the question my noble friend Lord Elton. the Minister, said.
"the first thing to do is to decide whether legislation is needed".—[Official Report, 26/10/83: col. 252.]
772
On the evidence of the concern evinced from all sides of your Lordships' House on a previous occasion is there not a strong prima facie case? Moreover, my noble friend conceded specifically at col. 252 that there was dissatisfaction with planning control.
I conclude by saying that if this measure of concern should be shared by your Lordships' tonight either as regards the protection of the interests of the young or the protection of the interests of the community—or, perhaps, the protection of both because in practice the interests do tend to merge—then surely if only as a matter of principle the Bill is worthy of further consideration in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing this very important Bill and for his extremely clear presentation of it. I am sure I speak for all your Lordships. I should also like to ask your Lordships' indulgence towards any error I might commit in this my first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this side of the House.
First, may I say that we on these Benches are most certainly in favour of the general principle behind the Bill. We think there is a very genuine concern at the lack of control within local authorities over this new phenomenon which has entered into life in many areas of the country. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out, and the Minister will no doubt recollect, my noble friend Lady David, during the passage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year, put forward amendments both in Committee and on Report aimed at giving local authorities some power to control these premises. The amendment which my noble friend put forward in Committee was designed to give district councils power to licence such places. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, responded by saying:
"Crazes sweep the country from time to time and it is possible that playing on video machines may be one of those crazes".
He therefore clearly thought that it was premature to take any action at that time.
In response to a further amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady David on Report which gave local authorities the power to specify a minimum age of entry to such premises, my noble friend was told by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that although he did not think this amendment was a proper way of dealing with the problem, nevertheless,
"the Government were aware of the desire of local authorities for increased powers in connection with the grant of permits for amusement places and the local authorities have made some constructive suggestions that are being considered. I think I can safely say that if those representations are persuasive and if their purpose is workable the Government would be quite well disposed to doing something in a later vehicle".
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in that debate.
Eighteen months later the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is asking the Government to look at this matter again. I think that it can be said without any shadow of doubt that the amusement

773
machine craze then sweeping the country is still doing so—in fact, even more so than before. Furthermore, it could be maintained that the later vehicle referred to by the Minister at that time could be seen to be the Bill which today is before us. I can only conclude that the Government's two objections to doing something about the problem must now in some way be overruled.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made a very clear presentation of his Bill to which I can in no way add. I should merely like to make a few general points and to concentrate mostly on the aspect of the Bill which affects young people. I am a mother of three. Two of my children are in adolescence and a third is about to enter it. I have learned that it is not only wrong but highly counter-productive to stop young people doing things unless those things are understood by them to be unequivocally contrary to their interests. It can even he said that, if we block off too many things, they will in some way find something even worse to do. I feel very strongly that one of the dangers in our present society is that sometimes young people are made to feel alienated from their parents and their parents' generation. They feel that adults tend to show insufficient sympathy and understanding for the very real pressures and tensions which affect them in today's world. This makes me look at this Bill very much in the light of whether its provisions are truly in the interests of young people and can indeed be proved to be so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, local authorities base their fears regarding the welfare of young people on the following grounds. They are concerned that, while local councils have powers to control the deployment of amusement prize machines in premises such as cafés and public houses where they are no more than an incidental feature, they have no powers to control premises used wholly or mainly for providing amusements. The chief complaint is that these latter premises tend to become the resorts of prostitutes, adolescents who are liable to be picked up for immoral purposes, and truanting school children.
As the Minister knows, the Royal Commission on Gambling, reporting as long ago as 1978, suggested a wide range of improvements which could be made if local authorities were given the power to carry them out. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is now most concerned that nothing has been done to bring these recommendations into operation, especially as such premises have been proliferating in the present climate of unemployment. As I said, while this craze goes on unabated, the recommendations that the AMA would like to see considered concern the hours of operation of the premises, as the noble Lord said, the provision of music, the supervision of the premises, the dishonest operation of machines, illumination, display of notices and, finally, the admission of children. It has become absolutely clear that children are spending an increasing amount of money on these machines. Those are some of the very legitimate worries of the authorities. They are truly not against anything that could be described as harmless fun in today's technological world, but they see it to be in the interests of the local community whom they serve that they should be given some power of control over these premises.
774
I fear that I am not a great authority on these amusement centres. I have had some experience through my son, who between the ages of 10 and 15 was a very great expert. We were in France at that time. He felt a positive compulsion towards these arcades, which the French in their inimitable way call "jardins de loisirs", which gives them a special connotation. He became extremely adept at playing the machines. I do know that, as far as small boys go, these machines have a veritably hypnotic influence.
I felt that before speaking this evening I should make a brief and rapid examination for myself. Over the weekend I visited a few of these amusement arcades in London. Out of the three or four that I visited. certainly more than half of the occupants were clearly under 16 years of age. Equally clearly they were playing the machines with extreme intentness and skill. It was also obvious that. given enough time, these young players could get through an enormous amount of money.
However in the last of the establishments I visited, which was in West London, to my great surprise, there were no children at all. I inquired as to the history of this centre and was told that initially there had been a great outcry in the neighbourhood when the news broke that a centre was to open. It was indeed mainly parents who were opposed to it. They feared that it would lead not only to their children spending a great deal of money but also to their truanting from school. Consequently, the local authority planning committee turned down the application to set up the amusement centre, but subsequently this decision was reversed by the Department of the Environment. However, I am glad to say that it all ended very happily. The premises were set up. The local council environmental health department laid down conditions—the same conditions that were required by their local community. They included one that children under 16 should not be allowed in. The owners of the premises subsequently conformed to those requirements. There have since been no children in the centre and no problem. The proprietor confided in me that evening that he much preferred children not to be allowed to enter his premises.
On another aspect, I tried to elicit a little information from those concerned and responsible for children in schools and youth clubs. I asked them what they considered to be the risks and disadvantages to children of free entry into amusement centres. They expressed the following concerns. First, it has been shown that playing these machines becomes an addictive habit, leading to compulsive gambling. I heard one example that one out of five of the members of Gamblers Anonymous is aged between 12 and 16. I do not know whether this is true but it is what I have heard. Secondly, they were concerned that children can get through an enormous amount of money with adverse consequences such as stealing and so on, and that their addiction to these places can lead to truancy.
As to the profit side of this affair, I inquired from a social club which is open only during licensing hours and was told that a net profit of £320 per week was made out of its one machine. Of one thing we can be sure: these machines provide immense scope for profit and no doubt for tax avoidance as well.

775
This brief examination led me to conclude, first, that the craze for playing these machines is not over; it is probably even increasing. Secondly, the existence of high profit margins will ensure that these machines will always be available. When a profit on those lines can be made, the machines will certainly not disappear. Thirdly, in spite of the lack of concrete provision, it is possible to implement the wishes of the local community at the present time if there is consultation as to what the conditions should be. Fourthly, after all—and this is the other side of the argument—in these days in our permissive society playing with space invaders and machines that operate with only 2p pieces could be regarded as relatively harmless. As I said at the beginning, if you block one avenue for young people the risk is that they find another which is a more dangerous one.
The proposed powers, however, as I understand them, will apply also to seasonal seaside amusement arcades which provide holiday entertainment and this I do find of concern. I find it difficult to think of Brighton and Blackpool and many other places where the family goes, and I find it difficult to imagine that children will have to ask someone to accompany them to put in their 2p piece when they are on holiday.
There is the side of it which I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, put very well: there is this mixture of machines in the same premises and it would seem a pity to bar the very harmless, or relatively harmless, occupations that these children have, though protecting them from the more serious ones.
While I agree that there are other laws which protect minors from addiction, such as that of alcohol and so on, and so it would be only consistent to legislate also to protect such minors from becoming addicted to gambling and to the other risks from it, I do, however, have a slight trepidation that this Bill in its present form might go too far, and, as I said, while protecting some young people who need protection, might spoil what can only be described as relatively harmless fun for many others. I know the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has kindly said that he is very much open to changes in the Committee stage of this Bill.
I will conclude by saying that we welcome very much on this side the principles contained in this Bill and we believe that the Bill provides the Government with a very good vehicle as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said 18 months ago; and this could be used for deciding on what controls local authorities should have which would at the same time allay the fears and anxieties of parents and all those concerned with the welfare of young people while maintaining some kind of entertainment for all those young people who, after all, see things in a very different way from the people of our generation. Those space invaders are very much part of their own generation, so I would like to support this Bill and I very much look forward to the Committee stage.
8.42 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am happy to rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is also a great pleasure for me to follow the noble Baroness,
776
Lady Ewart-Biggs, whose concern with the welfare of young people of our country is so well known to all of us in your Lordships' House.
I have not been, as I think is probably the case with most of your Lordships, directly concerned with these machines; nor have I been directly concerned with the interests of young people, except that apart from my service abroad which took up most of my adult life, I have been involved with various youth organisations and I am also now concerned with a voluntary committee of friendship for overseas students which has students from something like 65 different nationalities.
I have on occasions met—admittedly it was some years ago—young people who have been, as the noble Baroness said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said in reply, wholly addicted to these compulsive gambling machines; but I felt that, before I had the temerity to speak in your Lordships' House on a subject which was largely alien to me, I should try to inform myself about it.
The other evening I went round no fewer than five amusement arcades in Soho, which is, we are told, the centre of vice in London; and one might assume they were quite typical. It may surprise your Lordships to hear that my experiences were not those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. In all those five amusement arcades that I visited, four or five things were quite clear to me. First, they were well supervised; second, each one—and I looked at this very carefully—had a notice clearly saying:
"Entry is strictly forbidden to persons under 18"—
18, my Lords, not 16—
"unless accompanied by a parent or guardian".
In fact, the people I met in these arcades were all in the (what shall I say?) 18–30 age group. Indeed. I found some quite elderly men there; I even found one old woman there although, of course, it is an almost wholly male addiction—98 per cent. were men, I would say. There were certainly no youngsters. In all five arcades I visited there were two boys who might perhaps have been 17, but one could pass them off as 18. That was my second impression.
My third impression was that most of the people in those arcades came from the ethnic minorities—in whom I am particularly interested, as some of your Lordships know. In one arcade—of course, it shall be nameless—I counted 18 people, of whom no fewer than 16 were from the Far East: Japan perhaps; Hong Kong, China and so on; and there was also a scattering of West Indians and Africans; only two Britons, one of whom was a friend of one of the African boys. That experience was paralleled to a large extent, in the other arcades.
My fourth impression was that there were no unsavoury characters hanging around; no paederasts waiting to pounce. There might have been one or two people of perhaps dubious reputation outside the doors but not inside. As for compulsive gambling, one saw people enjoying themselves, but I did not see anyone going on and on until he had spent every single penny in his pocket.
I am quite prepared to admit that my experience may not he typical. I adduce these arguments not

777
because I want to speak against the noble Lord's Bill: on the contrary, I feel in many ways it is admirable. But I do feel from my very limited experience—and I emphasise again it is very limited and perhaps not typical—that there must be a great variety in the operation and control of these machines, as to who uses them, and as to the effect they have. In supporting this Bill, therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to bear that in mind.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, my interest in slot machines originated from countless visits to the Palace Pier in Brighton when I was a young person well under the age of 16, and when I could win 6d for a stake of a penny at a game called "The Little Stockbroker". My interests were maintained through my membership of your Lordships' Standing Committee on the Gaming Bill of 1968, as it then was, in conjunction with which, of course, this Bill has to be considered, and which then went into enormous detail of every aspect covered by the Bill.
My interest was maintained this afternoon when, like the noble Viscount and my noble friend on the Front Bench, I went to pay a visit myself to an amusement arcade in Leicester Square, where I too found that persons under the age of 18 were not admitted. On inquiry, I was told that this was the policy of the management; that they did not like having young people there and that they made it a strict rule and enforced it so far as they could. But there are, of course, amusement arcades all over the country where very young children go. I agree completely with, and support, the main provision of this Bill—and the noble Lord is to be congratulated on introducing it—that would proscribe the visit of young children under the age of 16 to premises in which certain machines are played.
I have been a bit confused since the debate started because the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and my noble friend spoke as though games of the space invader type, the video games, the games that take skill to operate, came within the ambit of this Bill. That has certainly not been my reading of it, and if I am mistaken I hope that the noble Lord will interrupt me. It is clear to me that under Clause 1(2) the operation of the Bill is confined to what we used to call gaming machines—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, at the noble Lord's invitation, and only for clarification, the new video machines are included within the definition of this Bill unless they are of the type where you put in the token or money for a single operation and there is no further free play. If you have a video machine and you are just looking at it as a single operation for pleasure, that is not included within the definition of the Bill. If you can get a free play, then it is.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, yes. I appreciate that if your use of sufficient skill gives you the opportunity to play another game free, then it comes under the Bill. But if it is confined to machines where you put in your 10p, you have five or 10 minutes' amusement and then you put in another 10p, it is not covered.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is correct.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am not at all sure that I would not prefer it if all such video machines were covered, whether or not you had the opportunity of a free game. The noble Lord was kind enough to give me advance notice that he intended to introduce an amendment that would confine the operation of this Bill to machines accepting 5p and 10p stakes only; in other words that if the machine accepts 1p or 2p, it will not be covered. If it does not, it will then remain subject to the conditions of Part III of the Gaming Act and Schedule 9 to the Gaming Act, because Section 34 will not apply to it.
That will have two rather unexpected consequences. One is that if you have low-stake machines taking 1p or 2p, you have to go through all the rigmarole of Schedule 9 to the Gaming Act and come under the control of the Gaming Act, whereas if the stakes are higher, if they are 5p and 10p, they would come under the scope of the Bill. But it would also mean that if there are at present premises with machines that will take stakes of 1p, 2p, 5p or 10p, a licence will be needed under the Bill for the 5p and 10p machines and they will be subject to the conditions of this Bill, whereas a permit under Schedule 9 will be required in respect of the 1p and 2p machines. It seems to me that, under those circumstances, a proprietor, rather than having to apply for a permit and a licence, would simply eliminate the low-stake machines, which are the lesser evil, and confine himself to the 5p and 10p ones.
The deletion of the application of Section 34 to this Bill means that the maximum stakes and maximum winnings laid down by that section will no longer apply to gaming machines taking a stake of 5p and 10p. Originally, when I was working on the Bill before it was an Act, the maximum prize was a shilling, and that was gradually raised to £1. That is not enforced. In the arcade that I visited this afternoon, the maximum prize at all the machines was £2, which is twice the legal limit. But, as the Bill stands, no maximum stake and no maximum winnings per game are laid down. I feel that it is not clear whether the local authority is empowered to set such maxima under its right to regulate the conduct of the business in the appropriate clause. I cannot find it. It is under Clause 2.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:It is Clause 2(1)(b), my Lords.
Lord Kilbracken: Under Clause 2(1)(b) the local authority is empowered to regulate the conduct of business. But it is not clear whether local authorities have the right to decide, as they must have, what the maximum stakes and winnings should be. I suggest that these should be the same as those contained within Section 34 of the Gaming Act; namely, a maximum stake of 10p and a maximum monetary prize of £1.
I draw attention to the fact that pubs are excluded from the operation of the Bill, but they will, of course, remain subject to the permits required under Section 34 of the Gaming Act and will therefore remain subject to the maximum stakes and winnings laid down in Section 34. It is about time that these maxima were applied.

779
This Bill will remove gaming machines from the Gaming Act and the very complicated regulations laid down under it. Schedule 9, which deals with licensing, occupies six closely written pages. There is machinery for appeals, different rules for Scotland, and so on. All of that is now covered by a couple of short clauses. I think that possibly under the Bill there is an oversimplification of the procedures to obtain a licence.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to the fact that at present a permit under the Gaming Act, which is what these premises require, which used to cost 25 shillings for three years, now costs only £8.50 for three years, and that there is a very substantial difference between £8.50, which is what is paid at present, and a fee which "shall not exceed £500", which is mentioned in the Bill. I support the Bill. I think that it needs amendment, and I hope to be able to help in amending it.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. I came here tonight to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is also a colleague of mine in various other matters. It delights me to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on a very fine first performance at the Dispatch Box. I am afraid that I have not done my homework as she has done and as have my noble friends Lord Buckmaster and Lord Kilbracken. However, I declare an interest. I am chairman of a charity—the Gordon House Association—which, with the help of the Home Office, maintains a hostel in South London for compulsive gamblers. It is in that capacity that I speak tonight, having heard this awful statistic which has come from Gamblers Anonymous of one in five of, as it were, the new entry to gambling being under the age of 16.
I should like to say just a few words about Gordon House. It is supported by, among others, the Casino Association itself. That association gives us very substantial support and we are very grateful for that support. The gamblers who go to that hostel are compulsive; and, once a compulsive gambler, one never ceases to be a compulsive gambler. To my mind, the gaming machines in the amusement arcades are leading to an addiction among the young which, unless we are very careful, will make many of them compulsive gamblers. In fact, I should like to see the age limit increased from under 16 to under 18, but perhaps that is not possible. However, I certainly think that these places must be licensed and I give my whole support to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in getting this Bill through.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene at this stage to explain the Government's attitude to this Bill and the issues with which it seeks to deal. I should like to start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, to the Front Bench and Dispatch Box opposite, over which I hope I shall gaze at her with no greater hostility on future nights than I have tonight. She is always able to smooth the path of her arguments with charm, and I assure her that it was
780
not necessary on this occasion to promote me to an unmerited Earldom in order to secure a friendly reception for what she had to say.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has given us the opportunity to debate an issue about which there is undoubted concern in several quarters. For that opportunity, I am very grateful. But I must confess to a shadow of doubt as to whether using a Bill for this purpose and at this time is absolutely appropriate. Your Lordships may remember that, in reply to a recent Question from my noble friend, I explained that we were looking at the whole subject of controls over amusement arcades and I referred to our proposed consultation and consideration; this so disarmed and encouraged him that he did not press me further, and I rather thought that he was content to let us proceed with due determination on that course.
To legislate ahead of consultation seems to me to carry with it dangers which I am sure my noble friend and all noble Lords would wish to avoid. However, your Lordships' House does now have an opportunity to express a view on this whole question and the Government will give full weight to the points made in this debate in the course of their wider consideration. It may be helpful to the House if I try to explain the background to this subject, the present position, the issues raised and the way ahead as we see it.
Although my noble friend's Bill deals with amusement machines as such, it is rather their concentration in amusement arcades which has led to a number of local authorities pressing for changes in the law so as to give them greater control over arcades. This pressure has arisen from local authorities whose decisions to refuse planning permission for arcades have been overturned on appeal by Department of the Environment inspectors. These authorities are concerned at the limitations on planning control and the cost implications when their decisions are overturned on appeal.
This in turn has led to pressure for a system of licensing control over amusement arcades and similar premises on the lines of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 relating to the licensing of sex shops. The initiative on this has been taken by the Amusement Arcades Action Group which has been formed by four London boroughs—Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Croydon and Wandsworth. An official of the Home Office attended the conference organised by the action group in September. Since then there has been a meeting between officials of the action group and those of the Home Office. Further meetings are expected to take place, but, at that meeting, it was agreed that the action group would submit details of the problems posed by amusement arcades to the Home Office and that my right honourable friend the Minister of State would then meet representatives of the action group. When we have received details from the action group and considered them, a meeting with my right honourable friend will be arranged. I understand that my noble friend has had some contacts with the action group That, my Lords, is how the issues have arisen and is the position that has been reached.
Before I go on, I think I ought to pause to explain the position on planning controls, in which the noble

781
Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others have expressed an interest. The difficulty with planning controls is that they are not by nature apt to the kind of control which we are speaking of today. The planning system is designed to control the development and use of land, and is obliged to concentrate upon land-use issues. Thus, in considering a planning application for an amusement centre, the local authority may properly take into account issues such as noise, disturbance or pedestrian traffic and congestion. But they are not able to deal with matters which are not land-use matters, such as the moral arguments which noble Lords have heard put forward this evening. Issues of this kind would need to be the subject of some other specific control—rather than the town and country planning system. The role of the Secretary of State for the Environment and his inspectors is of course governed by this fundamental limitation of planning control.
With regard to amusement centres in particular, Development Control Policy Note 11 sets out certain national guidelines, pointing out, for example, the importance of considerations of road safety, noise and appearance, and advising that amusement centres are usually best sited in areas of mixed commercial development. This note is currently being reviewed. The local plans applying to any area may have its own policies relating to the siting of amusement centres. The Secretary of State and his inspectors, however, are obliged to consider every appeal on its own merits, and, if no good planning reasons can be adduced for turning down a particular proposal, they will be obliged to allow it.
Turning now to machines; there are three types. The first are those which offer no inducement to play other than the expected pleasure of beating either your opponent or the machine itself. They are, I suppose, the linear descendants of the old pinball machines that flash staggering totals onto an illuminated screen at the end of a spring-loaded bagatelle board and which still survive. Of these, one type—space invaders—has become so popular that its name has almost passed into the language.
The second offers as a further inducement a prize of some sort—usually in cash, or tokens that can be used as cash in the place where the machine is kept. This category of machine is still intended to rely upon the attractions of the game itself as the main incentive to play. These machines are, I suppose, the linear descendants of those infuriating little cranes with which as a child, I tried, with complete lack of success, to extract an aniseed ball or a plastic boat from a heap of dusty goodies in a big glass case. On such machines the prize is added to give a little zest to the pleasure of playing. These machines are therefore called Amusement with Prizes Machines—AWP for short. The size of the prizes is regulated under Section 34 of the Gaming Act 1968 in order to ensure that the value of the prizes shelled out by the machines shall not increase to a size that would change the nature of their attraction. The maximum values stated in the regulation are reviewed by the Gaming Board every three years in order to keep them roughly in line with the value of money. In fact, a review has just been completed in the normal course of events, and an order, laid before Parliament by coincidence today,
782
will increase the prize limit for AWP machines from £1 to £1.50 for a money prize, and from £2 to £3 for a non-money prize.
The third category of machine is the kind which decants a prize of substantial value on fairly infrequent occasions. They are amongst the machines that used very appropriately to be called one-armed bandits, though electronic developments have rendered some of them limbless. The maximum prize may be prescribed by regulation. As these machines are permitted only in premises licensed for gaming and in registered clubs and miners' welfare institutes, they can be discounted for the purpose of this debate.
As things now stand a person who wishes to install an AWP machine in any premises must have a permit issued by the district council or London borough, except that, for public houses, the issuing authority is the committee of the licensing justices. The law draws a distinction between premises used wholly or mainly for providing amusements, such as funfairs, seaside piers or amusement arcades, and premises where the amusements are incidental on the other hand, to the main purpose of the premises, such as cafés, shops and take-away restaurants. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, had his education in the former type.
The relevant legislation empowers a local authority to pass a resolution either that particular classes of premises of the type where the machine would be incidental to the primary purpose should not be granted permits, or that it will limit the maximum number of machines permitted in a particular class of premises. Although this sweeping power is subject to appeal to the Crown Court, if a resolution is in force the court is bound by its terms. No such power exists in respect of premises used wholly or mainly for providing amusements. This means that an appeal against the refusal of a permit in such a case may be decided on its merits. If a local authority has refused a permit arbitrarily or has had regard to improper considerations, an appeal against the decision may succeed. A person who wishes to install video machines or other non-gaming amusement machines only, whether in a cafe, amusement arcade or elsewhere, does not require a permit. These machines do not come within the scope of the gambling laws.
The complaint made about amusement arcades, the machines located in them and the problems they are said to cause, vary. Some relate to amenity and environmental considerations; others to social or moral issues; and some to crime or gambling addiction. It is said that there are too many arcades, that they affect the character of the locality in which they are sited, especially if they are located close to schools, churches or other premises with which they are not compatible. They are also said to be a focus for noise and disorder because of their attraction to young people, who tend to congregate in the vicinity of arcades. The attraction of arcades to children is put forward as one of the major causes for concern. The tendency of arcades to attract children is said to encourage truancy and delinquency and to expose them to the influence of undesirable and criminal elements who might frequent such premises. Some children are said to steal money either from their

783
parents or elsewhere in order to play the machines. This leads to a further problem for it is said that children become addicted to these machines and that their addiction may encourage them to gamble in other ways. I know the noble Lord, Lord Spens, will be interested in that.
I have to say, however, that there is not much hard evidence that amusement arcades pose serious problems for the police or that they have other seriously harmful social consequences. An independent study conducted in 1974—if I can begin at that point—on behalf of the Churches Council on Gambling looked at the social effects of amusement arcades because it was then being said they were a major cause of truancy and child theft. The council found that there was no evidence to support the view that the availability of arcade facilities was linked in any degree with juvenile crime or delinquency, especially theft. Nor could arcades be held to be a major cause of truancy. The study did not disregard the risks inherent in such premises but considered that these should be seen in perspective. Although there was no evidence that children got into bad company at arcades, there was a need for vigilance and co-operation between the local authorities and the police. Local authorities were consulted in the course of the study about the need for amending legislation but no solid case was made out. Where local authorities did want change, this was to enable them to impose age restrictions. Some authorities had reached a voluntary agreement with the operators; a trend the study considered should be encouraged. It concluded that overall the legislation (which is still current) struck a sensible balance between control and the operation of a legitimate commercial activity.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to a later report by the National Council for Social Aid, mentioned also by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. The report is called Christians and Gambling. It devotes only about three paragraphs to gaming machines, but none the less we welcome this informed contribution not only to this question but to the wider question of gambling. In a review of gambling literature published in 1978 it is stated that there was no evidence that arcades or leisure centres constituted any material danger to their customers so far as their primary purpose and service was concerned. I hope your Lordships will notice that.
Since then, however, the advent of new technology has resulted in the phenomenon of the video amusement machine, and particularly space invaders. These games together with computer games have become an integral part of the modern leisure industry not only in amusement arcades but in the home. There was some publicity a few months ago—and noble Lords have referred to it—for a report by Gamblers Anonymous that was considering setting up a junior section to deal with children aged 12 to 17 because of its concern at the time and money some children were devoting to machines. More recently. the chairman of the National Council on Gambling has conducted a pilot survey in secondary schools into pupil participation in gambling and we await the publication of his findings with interest.
784
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that a fondness for video games was a danger. In excess such a fondness may have its dangers as many otherwise harmless preoccupations. But a fondness for video games can offer advantages as well as dangers. In August, the Department of Education and Science published a paper called Micro-Computers and Mathematics in Schools. It was written by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors and says that the use of computer games of the kind found in amusement arcades has a place in schools. Games programs often involve techniques well beyond O-level computer studies courses. They provide strong initial motivation—some of your Lordships would say too strong—and are a route to more academic activities.
These examples of recent activity and research in this area are interesting, informative and sometimes disturbing, depending on one's point of view. But they do not point clearly in any one direction. Even the experience of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, casts a very different light on it from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I am surprised that I did not bump into both of them and several others of your Lordships on my own recent reconnaissances.
The Government recognise the concern that has been expressed and we have a genuinely open mind on this whole question. But, before considering whether there should be tighter controls, it would be necessary— and I am sure the House would agree on this—to be satisfied that arcades and machines posed a threat or danger to those who played them, to other members of society, or were otherwise harmful. The fact that some young people who play these machines—and enjoy doing so—may cause a nuisance would not, in itself, provide a sound basis for tighter controls. Nor should we forget that some arcades, especially at seaside resorts, are provided primarily for children. The problems of an inner-city area such as Westminster (which includes Soho) are very different from those of a holiday town.
I recognise the concern of many people about what happens to young people in amusement arcades. But I am not at all certain that the events which concern them derive from the nature of the machines rather than from the nature of the other people frequenting the arcades. The attraction to these people—the predators, if you like, on the young—is simply the fact that the young are apt to congregate there. Now the fact is that the young are going to congregate somewhere, whatever we do, and to legislate against amusement arcades, or against amusement or gambling machines, is likely merely to move the problem on to somewhere else, somewhere that may be less well lit and less frequented than the places we are now talking about. If that is the likely result of legislation we want to be very sure that the new attractions and the new location will be preferable to the old and not a good deal worse. If they were to prove worse our efforts would have been misdirected.
And that means that we do need more information about the nature and extent of the problem, the supposed inadequacies of the present law, and the likely effect of any changes, whether they could be enforced and at what cost. We also need to consider how far it should be the Government that intervene in this even if intervention is required. There is no

785
certainty that tighter controls would solve this problem; it might simply move it elsewhere. Problems that happen in arcades can perhaps be dealt with by enforcement of other legislation depending upon the priorities and resources of the police.
What we are concerned with are the problems actually caused by amusement arcades and machines. This poses difficulties in relation to video and amusement-only machines which are not at present controlled and which can be played freely even at home or at school. A trip to the toy department of any store will show what I mean.
I want to draw to a conclusion. My noble friend was admirably brief as well as clear in his introduction. His Bill is, I fear, technically defective and I doubt whether the amendments that he has so far suggested would suffice to put it right. I will not go into a catalogue of examples for this is not a Committee stage, but I would say that from the Long Title it would seem that the intention is to license machines, as defined in the Bill; but from the Bill it is not clear whether it is the machines, the premises in which they must be located, or the occupier of those premises that is being licensed. Second, definition is always difficult and it seems to me that what is proposed here might well cover all manner of things, including pay telephones and juke boxes; but I have little doubt that that could be put right.
There is always a danger that legislation enacted in haste may be regretted at leisure. I have explained the Government's recognition of the concern over this whole subject and the serious consideration that is being given to it. Those who are pressing for tighter controls recognise that they must produce evidence to support their case, that wider interests must be consulted and that, if the case for tighter controls is established, the precise need must be precisely met in the drafting. I am sure that my noble friend's sagacity, together with the careful help of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would achieve that at any later stage.
My noble friend's Bill has provided us with an opportunity to debate the issue, but he is entering a field that has been very imperfectly explored, and it is certainly not yet clear that we have anything like enough knowledge of it to enable us to come to an agreed decision on exactly what to do about it.
The Government are not dragging their feet on this matter; we have already begun to take account of the views of interested parties. Consultation and inquiry are essential, both to establish that legislation is needed and to secure that, if it is needed, it is sound, effective and fair. I very much hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not feel compelled to try to perfect his own piece of legislation ahead of this essential process. Indeed, he may well feel that the best course would be not to proceed with it at this stage. We would not wish to obstruct him if he decides otherwise, but our own view is that it would be preferable if he were to withdraw it now so that he might return to the fray better armed a little later.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall seek to be very brief. I wish to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I would very much wish to
786
congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on her eloquent, informed and very moving "maiden" at the Dispatch Box. We hope to hear much more from her from that particular quarter in future. I very much thank her for her support. Her point about barring harmless machines is, with respect to her, in fact met, because they are only barred if there is, as I would describe it, a harmful machine. But certainly this is a matter that could be looked at further at Committee stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, made a telling point about variety, and it is because of this variety that this wide discretion is given to the local authority under Clause 2 of the Bill.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, it is not the intention to have a situation of dual licence for the premises; and, in answer to my noble friend Lord Elton, yes, it is a licence for the premises. If only 1p and 2p machines are concerned the Bill has no incidence and the provisions of the Gaming Act obtain, and it is all quite straightforward; but if a single 5p or 10p machine is on the premises then the provisions of the Gaming Act are ousted and the provisions of this Bill would obtain.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course.
Lord Kilbracken: What is the situation if there are both 2p and 5p machines on the same premises?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have tried to deal with that twice. I wonder how I can explain it better. If you have a 5p machine or a 10p machine on the premises—one machine—then you require a licence for those premises, irrespective of whether there are 2p machines or 1p machines, too. That is the proposal under the Bill as it is intended to amend it. Of course, these are matters which require consideration at Committee stage, and I fully take the point that your Lordships might take a different view; but that is the proposal.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about enforcement, it is not really within my competence to comment on want of enforcement, and the Bill really is not concerned with that. On another point made by the noble Lord—and I am extremely grateful to him—I agree that the monetary value for means of operation of these machines is not sufficiently included with making conditions as to conduct of business. That would require the introduction of an amendment at Committee stage to Clause 2(1)(b). I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
As to the simplified system of licensing, the present system is not only hopelessly complex but totally ineffective for any purpose whatever, practically incomprehensible and very wasteful. The simplified system proposed by this Bill was proposed to meet a simple need; the need to prevent addiction of the young and the need to provide for the interests of the community. But, again, consideration could be given to that at a later stage.

787
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for his humanitarian speech on a broad plane and his obvious concern for the addiction of the young—a concern reflected from so many quarters, as I have already mentioned—apparently a concern as regards which my noble friend Lord Elton wants hard evidence. We can come to that in due course, because, before dealing with what my noble friend Lord Elton said, I wish to thank him for his dextrous and sympathetic handling of a subject which appears to have been somewhat of an unwelcome baby dumped on his departmental doorstep.
All that I wish to say at this hour is that, with the greatest respect to him, I could not have heard the case for vast profit to be earned by amusement arcade operators argued better in a Chancery Court. It was superb. But the problem of how to deal with what is an addiction of the young. how to prevent it, is something for which there was no real proposal other than the rather defeatist approach of, "Well, move the addicts on. They can go on somewhere else". That is not the approach of those of us who support this Bill. Our problem, our concern, is not to move them on somewhere else, but to prevent them from becoming addicts.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.

  LONG SENTENCE PRISONERS: RELEASE POLICY
  LONG SENTENCE PRISONERS: RELEASE POLICY
  AGRICULTURAL GRANTS: THE GLASSHOUSE INDUSTRY
  AGRICULTURAL GRANTS: THE GLASSHOUSE INDUSTRY
  GUYANA: AID
  GUYANA: AID
  PROVIDENT ASSOCIATIONS: CIVIL SERVANTS
  PROVIDENT ASSOCIATIONS: CIVIL SERVANTS
  DOG LICENCES
  DOG LICENCES
  UNSTARRED QUESTIONS
  UNSTARRED QUESTIONS