Sitting of 3 April 1984

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

    School Inspectors (Visits and Reports)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the (a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average period of time between the end of Her Majesty's inspectors visits to a school or group of schools and the publication of their report.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Her Majesty's inspectors report orally at the end of their inspections to the head and, usually, to the governors shortly afterwards. Their written reports are now normally published between one and two terms after the inspection.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Secretary of State aware that some reports have not been published for as long as two years after the initial visit? Does he agree that that is far too long? Is the delay due to slowness in drafting, slow approval by the Department, or slow printing? What steps will the Secretary of State take to change the situation? Does he agree that if schools implement a report's recommendations quickly they can find themselves in the impossible position, when the report comes, out of being criticised for faults which they have already put right?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, for every reason, the sooner the report is published the better. The long delays were due to teething troubles at the beginning of the publication process. The time taken generally involves the gathering together to complete their report of the inspectors, who are quickly engaged on other inspections. There is no particular problem about inspecting or printing now, and the average time taken is about six months.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to speed up the process, because most people believe that the time between the inspection and the publication of the report is too long?
    Sir Keith Joseph: As I tried to explain, the process has been remarkably speeded up and now takes on average only about six months. Taking into account the business of the inspectors who have to gather together to agree their report while doing other inspections, I think that the time taken is quite commendable.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are delighted that the reports are being published, but we press the Government
    792
    to try to speed up the time taken. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a little demoralising for a school and its governors when, having received a verbal report and having started to put things right, out comes a report which implies that the school is still failing to meet the standards that everyone would like it to meet?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I entirely agree, but I am not sure whether it will be practical to make the time much shorter than the present average.
    Mr. Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what he believes to be the principal benefits of publishing reports? What lessons does he think have been learnt by the Department from their publication?
    Sir Keith Joseph: It is not so much that the Department has learnt, because Ministers have always read the reports, but that the schools concerned have benefited. The purpose is to encourage the local education authorities, which are taking the reports seriously, not only to apply the lessons learnt in the school inspected, but to generalise from that in relation to all the schools in an area. I hope that more of them are taking this seriously.

    School Meals
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has had any recent proposals from education authorities for changes in the school meals service.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that when the Conservative Government came to office in 1979 more than two thirds of schoolchildren took school meals, but that now, despite family impoverishment due to Government policies, the massive increase in the price of school meals and the abandonment of the service in some areas, under 50 per cent. of schoolchildren take school meals?
    Mr. Dunn: I cannot confirm that. Local authorities have a right under the law to make changes in the provision of school meals, the only stipulation being that they must provide meals for children whose families receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Does my hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the fact that the education service was not set up to provide meals for children, the experiments carried out by some local authorities in putting the school meals service out to the private sector have been highly successful, particularly the scheme undertaken by my own borough of Merton?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In the search for essential savings, privatisation is one option that can be considered. Nevertheless, I have an old-fashioned belief that responsibility for meals rests with parents.
    Mrs. Renée Short: I am surprised that the Minister is unaware of what his Tory friends on Hertfordshire county council have been up to. Does he realise that in an attempt to save less than one third of 1 per cent. of its total budget that Tory county council proposed to cut out school meals altogether except for the very poorest children? Is he further aware that due to widespread protests throughout the county the council is now thinking again and trying to

    793
    save £1 million by asking dinner ladies to take a reduction in their low wages? Does he agree that that is a darned scandal?
    Mr. Dunn rose——
    Mrs. Short: That is absolutely true, as the Secretary of State well knows.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has finished her question, but I have not yet heard the Minister's answer.
    Mr. Dunn: What a local education authority decides to do about school meals is not a matter for the Secretary of State, except with regard to the authority's obligations to families in receipt of benefit. In other respects the authority does not have to make proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend accept the description "extremely worrying" as applying to the evidence that the diet of many children taking school meals is leading to an unacceptably high incidence of heart disease due to the consumption of animal fats? In view of what the Department has done so far, will he now take an active rather than a passive role in advising parents of the dangers that their children face?
    Mr. Dunn: When the Department introduced guidelines in the past, much food was wasted, which was clearly of nutritional benefit to no one. The Department of Health and Social Security has undertaken the school children's dietary survey and I understand that the results will be available later this year. We are aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
    Mr. Radice: Does the Minister believe that authorities such as Birmingham and Hertfordshire should help to finance their schools by cutting the pay of low-paid dinner ladies by between 5 and 25 per cent?
    Mr. Dunn: It remains my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that authorities are entirely right to seek to provide non-teaching, non-educational services through private contractors if they believe that the resulting service will be better and more cost effective.

    Religious Education
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take further to encourage religious education in schools.
    Mr. Dunn: Primary responsibility for the provision of religious education rests with local education authorities and with the schools themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to emphasise the importance that we attach to this matter.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind answer. Will he give more encouragement and emphasis to the need for local education authorities and schools to give religious instruction very definitely and accurately? Is he aware that many parents in my constituency are greatly concerned that religious education in many multi-denominational schools is not being provided in accordance with the Education Act 1944?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is quite right. The 1944 Act requires religious instruction to take place in schools and governors have a responsibility to inquire whether it
    794
    is taking place and in what form. If they feel that the headmaster and the staff are not carrying out the requirements of the Act they have the right to make representations to the Department.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on his conversion to supporting peace studies in schools, especially such subversive dissertations on peace as the sermon on the mount? May I also welcome the Minister's own conversion to those peace studies which are traditionally enshrined in our legislation?
    Mr. Dunn: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to give Conservative Members lectures in divinity and theology.
    Mr. Greenway: As we live in an age of video nasties and all sorts of other unpleasant pressures upon young people, is it not a scandal that we are short of at least 1,000 teachers of religious education and that 60 per cent. of the children in our schools are not taught by RE specialists? Can my hon. Friend do something about that?
    Mr. Dunn: I cannot fail to take note of that robust invitation. The allocation of places for initial teacher training in 1983–85 was intended to secure an adequate supply of teachers of religious education within the total number of teachers being trained. That involved an increase in the proportion of entry places devoted to religious education. I hope that that reply goes some way towards answering my hon. Friend's point.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the effect on further education colleges of the cut in mode B youth training scheme provision.
    Sir Keith Joseph: In 1983–84 many approved places for mode B schemes were not filled. The reduction in provision is intended to lead to a closer match between supply and demand, giving colleges a sounder basis for planning.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister not aware that the places were not filled because industry is running at half pace? Five years ago, North Nottinghamshire technical college in my constituency turned out 80 skilled apprentices. The figure has now fallen to 30. Under these proposals, no skilled apprentices will be turned out. Instead, the Manpower Services Commission will turn out a handful of lads for bucket and ladder jobs. In such a situation, how will we produce the skills and technology that are needed to put the country back on its feet?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the technologies of the industries that he has in mind have changed dramatically and that in recent years they have gone through a grisly period as they have tried to recover their competitiveness. As a result, the numbers of apprenticeships have been very much reduced. However, I am glad to say that the Government, the employers and the education service are dramatically increasing the number of places in the new technologies, where there is a huge demand.
    Mr. Lyell: A great many of the places provided last year at a wasted cost of up to £70 million were used to train

    795
    no one. We must get the right match, so that the many good B1 schemes are taken up by young people and the others are abandoned, with the money being used more wisely elsewhere.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. A more effective deployment of the money is the motive underlying my answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).
    Mr. Sheerman: Some of the best mode B1 and B2 schemes are being cut, with no evaluation of how good they are. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people believe that there is no consultation between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment before the savage cuts which affect the future of our further education colleges and our young people are made?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Those are wild allegations. The reduction in the number of mode B places simply reflects the fact that there was not a demand for all the places provided last year.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last year there were 95,000 mode B1 places available, that the uptake was 55,000, and that the Government have cut back the number of places to 75,000?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend's figures are more or less the same as mine, except that he is bringing together the mode B1 and mode B2 figures. My figures are slightly different, but show a similar lack of demand for the places that were available.

    Education Expenditure
    Mr. Jack Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had from local authorities regarding the effect of reductions in education expenditure.
    Mr. Dunn: Since 1978–79 expenditure on education and science as a whole has increased by 1 per cent. in cost terms despite a fall of 12 per cent. in the school population. My right hon. Friend has discussed spending on education with the local authority associations and with individual authorities on a number of occasions in recent months.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister comment on a request from Northumberland county council, which was refused, that the Secretary of State, or any of his Ministers, should meet two representatives of the 16 high schools in that county, and on the response of the education committee of the Association of County Councils to the "Training for Jobs" White Paper presented to the House?
    Mr. Dunn: The Department receives many requests for meetings and interviews with Ministers. We do our best at all times to accede to those requests, but we cannot meet everyone during a very short time.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Has my hon. Friend received representations from local education authorities about ways in which the administration of education could be streamlined in their areas?
    Mr. Dunn: I have not, but we should be pleased to have such representations.
    Mr. Boyes: Is it not a fact that our most precious asset is our youth? As we are entering a rapidly changing and
    796
    highly technological society, should not more money be spent on education? Is not the threat of rate-capping and cuts in education a disgrace?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of believing his own speeches. We are determined to improve and enhance the education service in all parts of the country. The responsibility for such provision rests with local education authorities, which must decide how they provide education in their communities.
    Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that although many factors, including finance, affect the course of education, by far the most important factor is the ability of a teacher in front of a class to interest pupils and impart information to them? If we are concerned about education, should not our scrutiny be directed towards that?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I know that he and the House will welcome our initiatives in our White Paper on teacher quality. We must motivate those teachers who do not, for some reason, reach the standards that we require of them.

    Development Council for Continuing Education
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received for the establishment of a development council for continuing education.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): About 70 letters have been received in the Department since 1 January 1983, and I have discussed the issue with representatives of the local authority associations and the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education. Although we do not intend to set up a council of the sort proposed by ACACE, my right hon. Friend has agreed to grant-aid the development unit being established by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
    Mr. Dormand: That is an extremely unsatisfactory answer. Is the Minister aware that since the Government abolished the advisory council there has been a yawning gap in this area? Does he realise that without such an organisation continuing education will inevitably suffer? Is the Government's attitude to such a council based on principle, or on financial considerations?
    Mr. Brooke: ACACE wanted a large council, with a substantial annual budget. We doubt the wisdom of channelling all adult education development funds through a single agency, bearing in mind the existence of other relevant bodies such as the further education unit and the adult literacy and basic skills unit. The arrangement that we have in mind provides the flexibility that is needed. The unit provides a central focus, but there is a choice of agencies to carry out specific projects.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that adult and continuing education has a great role to play in retraining for work and in providing self-dignity to the old and unemployed? Will he make it a priority to give a higher profile to this important service?
    Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the expenditure from my Department will increase by 14 per cent. next year and by 22 per cent. in the following year.

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Litherlandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking on teachers pay.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with teachers unions about pay; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Teachers pay is negotiated in the Burnham committees and direct discussions between the holder of my office and the teachers unions on matters falling within the purview of those committees would be inappropriate. I am represented on those committees, and in that way my views can be made known to the employers who make up the majority on the management panel of each committee.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister not agree that the 3 per cent. offered to teachers is an insult and that the employers, by their refusal to go to arbitration, are showing their stubbornness? Does he not agree also that this could lead to an explosion of teachers' salaries, as indicated by the Burnham report?
    Sir Keith Joseph: No, absolutely no to all those questions. The hon. Gentleman has not realised that the climate has changed substantially since inflation has fallen. So far as I know, there is no exodus from the teaching profession because of pay. There is a large queue of what I am told are excellent candidates for the teaching profession, at current rates of pay.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister not aware that one of the reasons why there are others waiting to take teachers' jobs is the policy carried out by the Government of throwing groups of workers on to the dole so as to depress wages? Is the 3 per cent. that has been offered not a real wage cut in view of the fact that inflation is running at 5 per cent.? If the Tory party chairman can get a backhander of £100 per week for doing no more work, why can teachers not be paid properly? If the Government have £300 million to throw around in the Budget to the Duke of Westminster and his cronies as a result of changes in taxation allowances, does the Minister not realise that they should be able to find money for the teachers?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Anyone who pays attention to the rubbish that the hon. Gentleman puts to the House is likely to be harmed. Only when the country becomes competitive again, which means that unit labour costs allow goods and services to be produced at prices that consumers here and abroad find acceptable, will we get full employment.
    Mr. Madel: Will not a modest pay settlement this year improve job opportunities in the teaching profession and also ensure that the in-service training and retraining programmes will continue to have adequate funds?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with both the points that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, if teachers were to succeed in getting more than the amount of money that is being put into the calculations for a pay increase the result would be that less money would be available for things like books and the maintenance of equipment, which we all think should be provided for the children.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State remember that some 10 years ago, when the Houghton commission reported that teachers' pay had been eroded so dreadfully
    798
    —by well over 25 per cent. —the so-called Houghton money gave the teachers a 30 per cent. increase to enable them to catch up? Does he realise — I wish that he would listen—that the erosion of teachers' pay has put them back to where they were? In other words, they have lost 30 per cent. over the last few years. Does he not think that the offer of 3 per cent. at a time of 5 per cent. inflation is a disgraceful offer to an orderly and well-behaved group of working people?
    Sir Keith Joseph: On the contrary, I think that the Houghton dependence on comparability — part of the fashion of those days—was one of the principal causes of the lack of competitiveness and inflation that led to the unemployment of today.
    Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State believe that the best way of motivating teachers—something which he thinks is very important—is by insisting that they take a cut in real pay?
    Sir Keith Joseph: What the hon. Gentleman does not take on board is the fact that in an effective society pay will reflect supply and demand. The fact is that teachers are not leaving the profession in large numbers on pay grounds and that very good candidates are coming forward on the present pay conditions.

    Open University
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet the vice-chancellor of the Open University to discuss the expansion of programmes of continuing education.
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has been invited by the vice-chancellor to visit the Open University and he will be replying shortly.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State use the opportunity of his visit to the Open University to consider some of the criminal damage that has been done to that institution in the last year? [Interruption.] I refer to damage done not by the students but by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, who had a golden opportunity to expand the Open University for continuing education and to develop courses for people who must change their careers in midstream and who must train and retrain if they are not to be unemployed. There has been a savage cut in the number of courses, teachers and students. Will the Secretary of State explain why, to add insult to injury, the Open University has been asked to borrow £1 million at criminally high rates of interest to expand its continuing education?
    Mr. Brooke: As I said, my right hon. Friend has been invited to visit the university and will be replying shortly. I am sure that he will welcome listening to everything that the people at the Open University have to say to him.

    Head Teachers
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has discussed with the Government's partners in the education service his suggestions about the alternative deployment of unsatisfactory head teachers; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Keith Joseph: It was the Government's partners to whom I first put these suggestions and I shall be sending

    799
    them tomorrow a consultative document on a probationary period for new head teachers. I also intend to consult them in the near future on my thinking on changing pension rules to allow head teachers to step down to less demanding posts.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could achieve greater mobility among head teachers, and place many of them in the right posts, that might be less unsatisfactory? By that means we might achieve greater potential from what is largely a dedicated profession.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, certainly. Head teachers deserve good treatment and I hope that the proposed change in the pension rules, if it is accepted, will help in that regard.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State look into the viability of fixed-term appointments for head teachers? Does he agree that that works well with heads of departments at universities? Is he aware that fixed-term appointments would also enable him to promote young teachers without being saddled with them for life?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Fixed-term appointments, be they for head teachers or teachers, are within the power of local education authorities to grant, if they so decide. There are arguments in both directions. I do not think that any action is needed by me.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that head teachers are no different from anyone else in any other profession; in other words, that there are individuals who, through no fault of their own, will cease to be able to perform their duties satisfactorily and that there should be ways of removing them?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, indeed. Head teachers are the same as other people, although perhaps they are rather better when in their prime. If only there were a system of assessment for all teachers, including head teachers, the country, the pupils and the teachers would be much better off. That at present is nothing more than an item on the discussion agenda. However, I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hardy: Everyone agrees that unsatisfactory head teachers should be eased out. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while an unsatisfactory head teacher can do a great deal of damage to the children in his school, unsatisfactory Ministers can effect a great deal of damage to a whole generation?
    Sir Keith Joseph: On the evidence this afternoon, the Opposition are not showing that they have begun to grapple with the problems of government, but perhaps that is not surprising.
    Mr. Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of the head teacher is probably the single most important factor in determining the quality of the school? For that reason, will he accept, in view of the questions he has been asked this afternoon, that there is support on both sides of the House for fixed-term appointments for head teachers?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I accept that the head teacher is the nearest thing we have to a magic wand in connection with schools, but it does not follow from that that we should try to judge whether a fixed-term contract for head teachers would be beneficial. That is for the local education authorities.

    Students (Travel Arrangements)
    Mr. Radiceasked the Secretary of Slate for Education and Science what representations he has received from college principals on the impact of his proposals to change the arrangements for student travel on students at London colleges.
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has received two such representations, one from the vice-chancellor of the University of London and one from the provost of University College London.
    Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that the new proposals on student travel grants will mean hardship for many students in London, Lancaster and elsewhere who have long distances to travel? Will he follow the example of his Scottish colleagues and abandon these proposals?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend has received representations from areas outside London to the effect that the proposed new arrangements would cause special difficulties. The additional help for London students about which the hon. Gentleman asked could be provided only at the expense of other students, which I do not believe would be justified.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the permanent Under-Secretary agree that, in his letter to Mr. Hayden Williams the president of the University of London union, he admitted a degree of rough justice? Does the Minister further agree that the travel needs of Members of Parliament vary as greatly as those of students and that the imposition of the scheme would be not just rough justice, but injustice?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that rank. The present system of reimbursing individually travel claims in excess of the £50 element included in the main grant is administratively costly and unsatisfactory, as it involves local education authorities checking and paying numerous individual claims which they are not always well placed to verify. In addition, it represents an uncontrollable and effectively open-ended commitment to public expenditure.
    Mr. Favell: Why should there be one rule for Scotland and another for England?
    Mr. Brooke: That is a constitutional question to be answered by others than myself.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that the difficulties of checking expense claims should not stand in the way of continuing encouragement for students to travel from one part of the country to another? Will the Minister undertake to review the matter and bring it into line?
    Mr. Brooke: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which has been brought up in the consultations that we are undertaking.

    North East London Polytechnic
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the current and proposed staffing levels and student numbers at the North East London polytechnic.
    Mr. Brooke: The number of full-time academic and research staff at the North East London polytechnic in 1982–83, the latest figures available in the Department, was 648. I understand that the polytechnic's estimate of

    801
    the comparable number in 1984–85 is 527. The full-time equivalent number of students on advanced courses, excluding overseas and other full-time students, in 1982–83 was 4,850. The national advisory body's plan for 1984–85, as endorsed by my right hon. Friend, provides for a full-time equivalent of 5,274.
    Mr. Gould: Is the Minister aware that the only reason why substantial compulsory redundancies have been avoided is that the staff have co-operated on voluntary early retirement and that the three local authorities involved, including my own, have dug deep into their own resources, despite being victims of Government cuts, to make good the shortfall in Government financing? Does the Minister understand that the North-East London polytechnic, and other polytechnics, cannot continue to maintain high standards under the constant threat of redundancies and financial deprivation?
    Mr. Brooke: The expenditure out turn at NELP for 1982–83 suggests that its unit cost was about 24 per cent. higher than the average for polytechnics. It was 29 per cent. above the average in 1981–82. Although there has been some improvement, there must be scope for substantially greater economy and efficiency.

    Truancy
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last officially received truancy figures from Cambridgeshire county council.
    Mr. Dunn: School attendance figures were last received from that authority in 1977, as part of a sample survey.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. When he formulates education policy for Cambridgeshire and the rest of the country, especially for under-achievers and under-motivated students, will he not be assisted by knowing how many were at school and, more important, why those not attending school stay away?
    Mr. Dunn: The answer to the broad sense of the question is yes. We believe that our policies on the school curriculum are a means of combating truancy by ensuring that the pupils regard what is offered to them as relevant to their needs. There are, however, other means at our disposal.
    Mr. Freud: If the school curriculum provided lessons not only for the academically able but for those who underachieve, would not truancy rates fall very considerably? Is not truancy the responsibility of the Minister, in that he introduced rate-capping and penalties on local education authorities that made it so hard to engage teachers to achieve those curricula?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Liberal party, which has never got it right yet. We intend to take a number of initiatives soon to focus the attention of the education welfare service more sharply on school attendance issues. The hon. Gentleman's other points do not relate to the question.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the police have discovered that there is an increasing link between truancy and juvenile crime, particularly
    802
    vandalism? Will he consider meeting his colleagues in the Home Office to see that the matter is taken seriously and to discuss what can be done about it?
    Mr. Dunn: Like my hon. Friend, I believe that there is a link between truancy and juvenile crime. The causal connections are not firmly established. We have interdepartmental conversations and meetings with our colleagues in the Home Office. I assure my hon. Friend that that matter has been at the forefront of my attention.
    Mr. Flannery: Has the Minister noticed that there is some ambiguity in the original question asked by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney)? The question does not refer to truancy in schools. I understand that Cambridgeshire county council keeps a tight ship—it cuts and cuts. The question could mean truancy in the Cambridgeshire county council and that some council members are missing.
    Mr. Dunn: I do not think that I can find a suitable reply to that question. On the other hand, I shall say that I have every confidence that the Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire authority will do its level best at all times to provide the best service for the people and children in the area.

    Overseas Students
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of overseas students currently undertaking postgraduate courses at United Kingdom universities and colleges of higher education; and what was the corresponding figure in April 1980.
    Mr. Brooke: This information is not readily available for the United Kingdom. However, in 1983–84 the provisional estimated number of postgraduate students at universities in Great Britain who either paid fees at the overseas rate or were domiciled in other European Community countries was 16,300. The corresponding figure for the academic year 1979–80 was 17,500. Including public sector higher education in Great Britain, there were 18,900 such students in 1979–80. Public sector information for 1983–84 is not yet available.
    Mr. Hicks: Do not those unfortunate figures show a lack of understanding of the educational requirements of Third world countries? Is it not a fact that the very people from Third world countries who are now having to seek their education in other countries will in future return to their own countries to be leaders of government, industry and central administration? Could this action now not be to the detriment of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Brooke: Any fall in overseas student numbers is a cause for regret, but the fall in overseas postgraduate student numbers at universities of less than 7 per cent. since the full-cost fees policy was introduced gives some grounds for pleasure, in that the numbers have held up so well.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister pay attention to the impact on Commonwealth countries when, because of the increase in fees in this country, students go to Eastern European countries and countries behind the Iron Curtain for their further education? Will he consider particularly the political, social and economic impact for the future?
    Mr. Brooke: Many Commonwealth students benefit from the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan and the various schemes of support for overseas students operated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The report published recently expresses the hope that other countries will match the British Government's expansion in the number of awards under the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan. We could not afford to consider any general concession to students from other Commonwealth countries, although we share the view about the importance of student mobility and educational interchange expressed by the Heads of Commonwealth Governments at their meeting in New Delhi last year.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Has not the time come to concede that the decision in 1979 by our Government to charge full fees to overseas students has proved to be wrong?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government welcome overseas students, but do not believe that they should receive an indiscriminate subsidy from the British taxpayer. We are, however, committed to schemes of targeted support for particular students and for particular countries with historic relations with the United Kingdom. Details of the way in which these schemes are developing were given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister reconsider his earlier answer? Ought he not to be appalled at the idea that a 7 per cent. drop in overseas students could mean that 7 per cent. fewer orders will be placed by those students when they return home and begin work, and that such a loss of exports might well lose this country far more than has been saved by putting up the fees?
    Mr. Brooke: I cited the 7 per cent. as a demonstration of how highly our postgraduate education is valued. The particular point on foreign policy put by the hon. Member is obviously one for my right hon. and learned Friend.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the incongruous comparison yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services of his review with the great and constructive Beveridge report of 40 years ago will be treated with the greatest suspicion throughout the country? Is she further aware that under her Administration the number of those drawing supplementary benefit has increased by over 40 per cent. and now totals nearly 4·5 million people? Will she, therefore, in the light of those figures, give the House a categorical assurance this afternoon that, as a result of the review now under way, there will be no cut in real terms in the already shamefully low level of supplementary benefit?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is conducting a comprehensive review of four particular areas and undertaking a statistical survey of the fifth. I think that it is time for a review and that the review will be welcome. It is most unwise to presume the result of a review before it has been undertaken, and therefore I shall keep an open mind. Supplementary benefit has risen in real terms.
    Mr. Hickmet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steelworks in my constituency of Scunthorpe uses 2·6 million tonnes of coal per annum, 1·8 million tonnes of which comes from the Yorkshire pits? Is she further aware that, as a direct consequence of the action initiated by Arthur Scargill, that plant is faced with closure and the possible loss of 10,000 jobs? Is she also aware that, as a direct result of that, 11 pits in England, six of which are in Yorkshire, may also close with a possible loss of a further 15,000 jobs? Is that not a disgrace and should there not be a national ballot of the members of the National Union of Mineworkers?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise what my hon. Friend has said about Scunthorpe, which has made strenuous efforts to improve its performance and has succeeded in doing so. I hope that it will have the opportunity to continue in the excellent way in which it has started under the British Steel Corporation. I agree with him that most people in the mining industry would like to have a national ballot and I hope that that desire will be supported by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Kinnock: We have heard in the past few days of the decision to permit some policemen to be armed with sub-machine guns. All Members will want to safeguard the security of leaders who will be coming for the summit meeting in June, as we want to safeguard the security of anyone else who is likely to be the target of terrorist attack. Nevertheless, can the Prime Minister tell us what on earth is the use of sub-machine guns for the purpose of personal security?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has approved the purchase by the Metropolitan police of a small number of sub-machine guns. They are intended for the protection of persons at high risk but will be issued only under the most stringent conditions and in the most exceptional circumstances, when the degree of threat against a person being protected justifies such a precaution. Authority for their issue may not be given by a person below the rank of assistant commissioner.
    Mr. Kinnock: Even taking into account the interests of security, that response and, it appears, the procedures laid down, are much too vague to justify a huge change in the disposition of security personnel. Can the Prime Minister imagine what the effect would be of pursuit with sub-machine guns through a crowded London street? Will she reconsider this decision and ensure that permission to purchase and bear these arms is withdrawn?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary took this step after great consideration. I have explained some of the safeguards —the order is for a small number of sub-machine guns for the protection of persons at high risk, for use only in exceptional circumstances, and authority for the issue of the guns may not be given by a person below the rank of

    805
    assistant commissioner. The officers to whom these weapons will be issued will be trained to high standards by the Metropolitan police force arms training specialists in techniques appropriate to the role of the police. They will not be trained by military personnel.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware, following on that question, that the Thames Valley police authority was told on Friday that it would not receive the £1·5 million promised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary towards the costs of policing at Greenham common, but would receive only half? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the balance will fall on the ratepayers and that the cost of policing these demonstrations, which are now no longer local but national, must be funded from central Government and not local ratepayers?
    The Prime Minister: I have made inquiries about this matter and I understand that the grants given to the Thames Valley police authority were calculated on the ordinary rules.
    Mr. Evansasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: During the course of the Prime Minister's busy day, will she take the Secretary of State for Social Services to one side, point out to him that no inquiry is needed into the plight of the over-50 long-term unemployed, and tell him that he could assist them immediately by paying diem the long-term rate of supplementary benefit?
    The Prime Minister: I answered a similar question two or three weeks ago. To do that would require expenditure of some £450 million extra. I am always being urged by Labour Members to reduce the burden of taxation, and I cannot do that and increase public expenditure.
    Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one inescapable responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman finish his question. I presume that he is asking a question which the Prime Minister can answer. He cannot ask questions on what the Prime Minister's view of the Leader of the Opposition would be.
    Mr. Lord: All I ask my right hon. Friend is whether, in her opinion, as Leader of the Opposition — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be much more sophisticated than that.
    Mr. Lord: Is it not now time that the Leader of the Opposition asked for a national ballot on the miners' strike?
    The Prime Minister: I do not answer for the Leader of the Opposition, but I live in hope that he may support such a proposition.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Prime Minister accept that, with the agreement reached at the weekend by Community Ministers of Agriculture, her Minister of Agriculture,
    806
    Fisheries and Food failed to honour her pledge to the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland to achieve the same arrangements as those achieved for the Republic of Ireland? Is she aware that agriculture is the largest, and our only indigenous, industry in Northern Ireland, and does she accept that damage has been done not only to the dairy industry but to the meat exporting industry, the damage to which has been described today by its leaders as devastating? Will she at least—this is a modest request —ask her Minister to carry out an assessment of the damage done to that industry, with a view to taking corrective action?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that my right hon. Friend got a reasonable agreement for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that in the rest of the United Kingdom farmers are having to cut down their surplus milk production, whereas in Northern Ireland, by virtue of what my right hon. Friend has managed to procure in the Community, they will have a special amount so that they can increase their production.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list he official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reflect upon the fact that, when she became Prime Minister in 1979, in Scotland there were 154,400 unemployed, and that now in 1984 there are 434,300 unemployed? In north Lanarkshire, which incorporates my constituency, ther has been an increase since 1979 of 128 per cent. and, of these, 24·1 per cent. are males, some of whom will never work again. Will she now do something with compassion, get these people back to work, loosen the purse strings of the revenue coming from North sea oil and give them a chance to live a proper life?
    The Prime Minister: I am the first to agree that unemployment has gone up in Scotland — indeed, it went up also during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are now many new industries in Scotland which have an excellent future and give good prospects for jobs. These are industries that were not there before, and which are now expanding.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Since tomorrow is the 35th anniversary of the signature by Britain of the North Atlantic treaty, by a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to pay tribute to the success of the Alliance in keeping the peace for all that time by a policy of deterrence and multilateral disarmament?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, NATO is our shield and our security. It is vital that that organisation continues, and I pay tribute to its function of deterrence in the nuclear field, and to the wish of all of us to try to secure multilateral disarmament in conventional and nuclear weapons at all levels. That is our object, and we shall strive ever more to succeed.
    Mr. Steel: Since the Government of the Argentine sent proposals on 18 February for improving relations between our two countries, why is it taking so long to send a reply, and when will it be sent?
    The Prime Minister: We sent proposals to the Argentine Government, to which they responded. We shall shortly be responding to them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would not have been wise to send a reply during recent days, which obviously was a time of heightened sensitivity.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noted the report of the CBI on the post-Budget forecast that was published yesterday, which suggests that manufacturing output will rise even more rapidly in this country this year and next year than the Government's own forecasts? Does she not think that it would be refreshing if the pessimistic people on the Opposition side of the House would just occasionally welcome something that is obviously very good news for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. The CBI report was excellent news, particularly following a month, indeed a quarter, of very good news about exports, and following upon very good news about higher productivity. But I do not expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches to welcome that. Good news for Britain is bad news for them.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports in the press in the past two weeks about the appalling conditions in which many homeless families are forced to live in inner London, and especially in Princes Lodge, Commercial road, in Tower Hamlets? Will she
    808
    now take urgent action to ensure that local authorities in London have sufficient resources to meet the problem of homelessness, or does she want the homeless on her conscience as well as the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the first thing to be done is to fill those many empty local authority houses, some of which have been vacant for up to a year. If they were brought into service many more people would have homes.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Arthur Scargill is a confessed Marxist, surrounded by Communist aides and advisers? Even more serious, is she aware that the support for Mr. Scargill is coming from the Kremlin?
    The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House would like to hear the answer to the question.
    The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am concerned that the miners should have an opportunity to express their views on their right to go to their place of work and earn a decent living. I hope that they will consider the case on merit: first, because they have a reasonable pay offer that will keep their pay about 27 per cent. above the average; secondly, because the Government have an outstanding record in supporting investment in the coal industry; and thirdly, because the Government have been reasonable in providing good amounts for early retirement and especially good redundancy payments for those who have to leave their jobs. That amounts to a vote of confidence in the miners and in the future of the industry in which they work.

British Hostages (Angola)
3.31 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he is now prepared to talk to UNITA to secure the release of 16 British hostages held in Angola.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Our interest in this matter is a humanitarian one. We wish to see the British hostages released as quickly as possible. Consistent with our normal position on hostage-taking, we are quite happy to speak to anyone if that is what is required to secure their release, and we are already in touch.
Mr. Leigh: Did my hon. Friend attempt to establish contact with UNITA to secure the release of the hostages, who include my constituent Mr. Dennis Clawson, as soon as they were kidnapped? Did he pass on UNITA's warning some months ago that the engineers were at risk? Was he misquoted as saying that UNITA is nothing in southern Africa, which may have prompted the kidnapping? Will he make it clear that the Government support the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Angola, including the Cubans and the East Germans?
Mr. Rifkind: On my hon. Friend's first question, we made initial representations through the Red Cross to UNITA, which said that it would not tell the United Kingdom the conditions for the release of the British hostages until after the hostages had reached its base camp in southern Angola, which they did in the past couple of days.
My hon. Friend referred to certain press reports about what I was purported to have said in South Africa. The reports that I have read in the press were inaccurate. At no time did I make any reference to UNITA in the terms that were expressed.
On the general position, we consider the present civil war between UNITA and the Angola Government to be the internal affair of Angola. Naturally, the United Kingdom hopes that peace will come to that country as soon as possible. In the meantime, it is for the people of Angola to decide their own future. We believe that the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Angola will be helpful in that connection.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On behalf of my constituent, Thomas Murphy, and his family, I thank the Minister for the patience that he has shown. Is the Minister aware that people, not least hon. Members, are becoming impatient with the disgraceful activities of UNITA? Should it not be pointed out to UNITA that its activities are in no way regarded by the House as pro-Western?
Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while he needs to use language that is delicate and diplomatic in such difficult circumstances, it should be said that the South African Government could be more helpful and that their Pontius Pilate attitude is something that we are bound to deplore?
Do not the actions of UNITA represent not coercion but outright terrorism? That should not be dressed up in any other way.
Mr. Rifkind: Any organisation or individual that takes innocent civilians as hostages, for whatever purpose,
810
deserves to be rebuked by both sides of the House and by all concerned with hostage-taking wherever that takes place around the world.
On the hon. Gentleman's other comments, whatever views he may have about South Africa, I hope that he will appreciate that UNITA would undoubtedly continue to exist irrespective of South African policy. What we are concerned with is the simple question of the release of British hostages, and we hope that the indications that we have from UNITA that it is prepared to release the British hostages in the near future will be fulfilled.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that no fewer than three of these hostages are my constituents? They are among the large number of people from Hereford who are legitimately and properly employed in various parts of the world in areas in which, although they may be somewhat contentious, they can reasonably expect the full protection of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, as set out on the inside of their passports. Is my hon. Friend aware that the confidence of these people's families will be very much affected by the speed, resolution and determination with which he and the Government resolve this problem?
Mr. Rifkind: I have listened with great care and attention to what my hon. Friend has said. He will, I am sure, accept that the Government are as concerned as he is to secure the early release of these British hostages. I am sure that the whole House will agree, however, that when dealing with an organisation which has taken innocent civilians and is using them as hostages, great care must be taken in any contacts that might take place with regard to the consequences for the general principle of hostage-taking in international relations.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for being so cooperative and helpful during the last few days. As he is well aware, one of my constituents, Mr. Hywel Lloyd, is involved. If negotiations go well, when does the Minister believe that the hostages will be released?
Mr. Rifkind: It is too early to give a specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. As I said in my initial reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), we are already in contact with UNITA. We obviously are pressing for as speedy a resolution of the problem as possible and as soon as we have any further specific information to convey to those who have a constituency interest in these matters, we will do so.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend accept that his decision to talk with UNITA recognises the reality of their power over the hostages? Will he keep the families concerned in this country fully informed? As he may know, one of them is in my constituency.
Mr. Rifkind: I am very happy to assure my hon. Friend that we shall do our best to keep the families concerned fully informed of any developments that take place with regard to their relatives held by UNITA in Angola.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister take up with the proprietors in Fleet street the way in which they are issuing news? As I understand it, they were contacted by UNITA and invited to a press conference to which the hostages were taken. The story as disclosed was quite distressing to one of my constituents whose husband

811
is a hostage. If, in the future, there happened to be bad news, rather than good news as there was this weekend, even greater distress might be caused. Would the Minister please try to prevail on the media at least to keep him informed so that he can get in touch with the families, even if it is only minutes before there are any disclosures?
Mr. Rifkind: I know that the public as a whole and certainly the families were pleased to hear that the hostages appeared to be in good physical condition after the ordeal they had had to suffer in their trek through Angola. No doubt those who are responsible for newspapers will note the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be very curious if UNITA destroyed any good will that might exist for it by not releasing people who are far more innocent than those released by the Government in Angola? Will he maintain his present correct attitude of trying, on humanitarian grounds, to get the British nationals released while not giving ground for possible future attacks on British civilians by making it appear that the British Government can be twisted in this way?
Mr. Rifkind: I have said that, in accordance with our normal custom, we are perfectly willing to speak to those who for the time being have physical control of innocent British civilians. It is obviously right and proper, from a humanitarian point of view, to take that course of action. I am sure that the whole House would agree, whatever views hon. Members may have about UNITA, that any organisation that seeks to use innocent civilians for this purpose deserves to be condemned. That is true whether it is UNITA or any other organisation in any part of the world.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the Minister care to reconsider his statement that UNITA can continue its operations without the logistic and armaments support provided by South Africa? If that is really his view, it is a very surprising one to come out of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Mr. Rifkind: There is a widespread view in many countries and among many Governments that the level of support for UNITA may influence and determine its operation. The organisation itself has shown that it has some genuine support within Angola. It is impossible for any outsider to calculate the extent of that support. The consensus throughout the international community is that UNITA has some support in Angola, and it is to that that I have drawn attention.
Mr. John Wilkinson: When my hon. Friend says that the future of Angola is for the people of Angola to determine, is he explicitly committing his office to the principle of self-determination for Angola? If that is so, surely the continued presence of Cuban forces in Angola is the sole obstacle to that process of self-determination.
Mr. Rifkind: I have emphasised the fact that a civil war has been going on for a number of years within
812
Angola. As with other civil wars in other parts of the world, it is right and proper for the citizens of Angola to determine their own future. The presence of foreign troops in Angola does not assist the process of national reconciliation within that country. We believe that the departure of foreign troops from Angola would be beneficial to the people of Angola as a whole.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Although one accepts that the whole point of the exercise is to secure the release of the hostages, is it not a condemnation of the Government's support for the South African regime that it appears now to have no influence upon the UNITA regime? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no way of securing the release of the hostages without envisaging the break-up of Angola? Is that the import of what he is telling the House?
Mr. Rifkind: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. That is apparent from the rather confused nature of his question. I have not expressed any view on whether South Africa does or does not have any influence over UNITA. I have said that there have been reports on the circumstances in which UNITA would be prepared to release the British hostages. If these reports are confirmed, we have said that we shall be willing to speak to UNITA in the hope that this will secure the early release of the hostages. Our concern is a humanitarian one, and we are continuing to approach the issue on that basis.
Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware that we share the humanitarian concern for the fate of the 16 British hostages and that we want to see them freed as soon as possible? Is he further aware that there will be genuine concern throughout the House if direct dealings with Dr. Savimbi and UNITA were to encourage further hostage-taking, blackmail and other acts of terrorism? Is he conscious of the effect that direct dealings with UNITA may have on the Luanda accord between Angola and South Africa and hence on the chances of getting rid of South African troops from Angola?
Finally, will the Minister bear in mind the undesirability of doing anything to promote the interests of the allies of South Africa—of which clearly UNITA is one—at a time of continuing repression within that country?
Mr. Rifkind: I stress that our attitude towards this problem is based on the principles that have been established over the years following previous instances of hostage taking. We are prepared to speak to those who have physical control over British citizens, but we are not prepared to contemplate our foreign policy being determined on that basis.
The agreement that has been reached between South Africa and Angola is seen clearly to be in the interests of both countries. It is unlikely that anything affecting the British hostages will have an effect for good or ill on the accord.

Mining Dispute (Police Action)
3.44 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration namely,
"the threatened arrests, the arrests and the conditions of bail involved in the current miners' dispute."
Many of my constituents have been attempting to carry out peaceful picketing in the Nottinghamshire coalfield in furtherance of their dispute. In the past three weeks they have undergone harassment by the police forces that occupy the area. They have been arrested when they have attempted to go into the coalfield and they have been turned out of their transport.
On that fateful night when a Yorkshire miner lost his life, four busloads of Yorkshire miners were told to return home when they were 10 miles from their destination. Their empty bus was given a police escort back to Yorkshire and the miners proceeded on foot.
I do not condone or make excuses for violence, but do such actions by the police help? That happens not only when miners attempt to enter the coalfields but when they leave. Some miners from Kiveton Park colliery in my constituency were leaving a coal mine after peacefully picketing when they were surrounded by the police. After names and addresses were taken, they were told that if they returned they would be heavily fined or gaoled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right.") They were escorted out of the county by two police cars and two police motor cycles. On that occasion no charges were made.
When people are charged, a condition of bail is that they do not return to that NCB work place again. Is not that like saying that they are guilty of the offences without a hearing? Over 500 people have been bailed under those conditions already. [AN HON. MEMBER: "I would have fingerprinted the lot."] The creation of a no-go area by sealing off the county of Nottinghamshire is a threat to all members of society.
Not only miners are being subjected to such treatment. Four building workers were dragged from a car at one of the road blocks. Some of my constituents are staying in what they describe as "safe houses" inside the road blocks so that they can further the trade dispute. What is happening is unprecedented in modern industrial relations.
As Member for Rother Valley in South Yorkshire I stand in the Chamber today where 47 years ago to the month, on 26 April 1937, the then Member for Rother Valley, Edward Dunn — like myself a miner from Maltby colliery in South Yorkshire — begged to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House because of what was happening at Harworth colliery in the north Nottinghamshire coalfield. Then too, there was trouble between police and pickets. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member now coming to a close? I ask that because he is dealing with arguments which are hardly urgent. He is speaking of the past.
Mr. Barron: I end by saying that I believe that what I have said about arrests and the condition of bail should be considered in an urgent debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the
814
House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threatened arrests, the arrests and the conditions of bail involved in the current miners' dispute."
I say to the hon. Member and to the House that I do not in any way under-estimate what he has said. We debated this matter last week on two orders—[HON.MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am on my feet. We had energy questions yesterday and there will be a opportunity later this week to raise the matter during the Easter Adjournment debate.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I represent an area in the centre of Nottinghamshire. The vexed question of civil rights in a democratic society such as ours involves the civil rights of minorities. It should be no surprise to the House that 1½ million people — the majority — in Nottinghamshire would take exception to some of the remarks made today.
The problems of civil rights and civil liberties can be seen in two different ways, especially if one is part of a minority. They are seen in different lights by different individuals. I hope that those rights also apply to the 1½ million people of Nottinghamshire whom I and others represent.
Mr. Barron: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just dealt with the hon. Gentleman's application under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot take a point of order on my ruling.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In saying that you could not allow the debate sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), you said that there had recently been two debates on these matters. Last week there were debates on two orders, one dealing with concessionary coal and the other dealing with the new redundancy system introduced by the Government. You will recall that, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), you specifically made it clear that when we debated those matters late on Wednesday night there was to be no reference at all to picketing, civil liberties or the fact that in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and other areas the police were acting in such a way as to undermine the freedoms of individuals—not just miners. I believe that the Official Report of the three hours of debate in which about 20 Members took part will show that no more than about three sentences related to those matters. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) was brought to order by the Chair, in accordance with your ruling, because he dared to venture into the subject of picketing and the police.
I put it to you once again, Mr. Speaker, that we have not had a debate about the erosion of civil liberties or about the paramilitary police and it is time that we had one. I therefore call on you to reconsider the matter.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When we met the Home Secretary at the Home Office last Thursday, he categorically refused to discuss policing but attacked us on television the next

815
day for what we had been saying here. What chance do we have if we cannot put down parliamentary questions and the Home Secretary will not even discuss the subject with us?
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance as to how this matter can he brought before the House? I am not challenging what you have said about today's application under Standing Order No. 10 or my own attempt to raise the matter. Members who represent mining constituencies, as I do, receive urgent telephone calls and reports every day about people being arrested and held in cells. In my constituency, they have even been asked which way they voted in the recent by-election. That is absolutely contrary to the Ballot Act, which provides for the secrecy of the ballot. My hon. Friends and I are therefore continually seeking to bring the matter before the House.
In the debates to which you have referred, Mr. Speaker, it was out of order on your own ruling to discuss the police, and yesterday you rebuked the Secretary of State for Energy and me for going beyond the subject of energy supply. The situation still continues, and we are now told that the only opportunity to raise the matter is in the Easter Adjournment debate.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. If there is great disquiet on either side—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to disquiet in the other direction — and public concern throughout wide areas of the country but Parliament refuses or is unable to discuss the matter, the tension and anxiety are increased and the House is brought into disrepute. It is in that context that I seek your advice on how the subject of civil liberties and police action may be brought before the Chamber for consideration.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that the business under consideration today was chosen by the Leader of the Opposition, who seems not to have exercised his choice to the satisfaction of his right hon. and hon. Friends. When you have ruled on this matter, I shall seek to raise other issues arising out of that. It seems, however, to have escaped the notice of some Labour Members that the opportunity to raise the matter in question was in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: I will content myself with saying that I do not propose to change my ruling on Standing 3No. 10 this day. I will bear the matter very carefully in mind. I fully recognise that there is pressure in the House for a debate on these matters, and I will consider the matter as it arises.
Mr. Beith: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cheap point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), would you make it clear that it is not the responsibility of the Opposition to call attention to matters of great national importance such as we are discussing? It is the Government's responsibility to make time available to debate such important matters. Would you make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that that consideration did not play a part in your ruling today?
Mr. Beith rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the House that I do not consider what choices are made in terms of Opposition days. I deal with applications under Standing Order No. 10 as they arise.

Opposition Days (Allocation)
3.56 pm
Mr. Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Order Paper, this is the 12th of 19 allotted Opposition days. Of those 19 days, one has so far been made available to the Liberal party, and it has been made plain to us that that is the only day which the Leader of the Opposition will make available. One half day, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has as much right to be heard in the House as every other hon. Member. I should be grateful if those hon. Members who surround him would allow him to be heard.
Mr. Beith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of those 19 days, half a day has been allocated to the Ulster Unionist party.
Those figures do not in any way represent the balance of numbers of Members in the House among the Opposition parties, let alone their support outside it. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to safeguard or guarantee the rights of the various groups within the House? You have just been appealed to, quite properly and understandably, by a group of Labour Members who wish to debate an issue which their leader has not seen fit to raise. I appeal to you on behalf of another group of hon. Members, widely supported in the country, who seek a fair division of the time which, in the Standing Orders of the House, is labelled not "Labour time" but "Opposition time".
I also ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, on a more technical point. Today was announced last week as a half Supply day, the second half of the day being allocated to a discussion of Europe in Government time, but it now appears on the Order Paper as a whole Supply day. Could the Leader of the House, or even the Leader of the Opposition, explain whether the second half of the day will be taken in Government or Opposition time? Have the Opposition made half a Supply day available for a debate on Europe, which was originally to have taken place in Government time? Could the Leader of the House perhaps be given an opportunity to clarify the position, and tell us whether at some stage he will be doing a trade-off with the Leader of the Opposition over the half day, so that we can debate some other subject, or whether he will take the opportunity to put down a motion giving proper rights to the various groups represented in the House?
Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, in which you can ensure that there is further consideration of the present completely wrong balance of time between the Opposition parties, and can you give the Leader of the House the opportunity to clarify what is happening today?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No——
Mr. Skinner: It is the same point.
Mr. Speaker: We have an Opposition day—I do not know whether it be a day or a half day—and a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part. Points of order will only use up time.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you appreciate,
818
Sir, that the House as a whole supports you in making your decision on this matter. If the Opposition cannot make up their mind between the wishes of some Back Benchers and the reluctance of the Front Bench to have a debate, that is not a matter for the House of Commons as a whole.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have dealt with that matter and are discussing a different point now.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice, especially since you have a copy of the Standing Orders before you, that this matter has been settled democratically — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—by Members of the House. I always had the impression, but no more than that, that the Liberals were all about ballots. There has been a ballot on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and you are now saddled with carrying out the result of the ballot.
However, I wish you to consider another point before you come to a conclusion on the point made by the Liberal Chief Whip. Most hon. Members know that there is an inner rift between one section of the alliance — the Liberals—and the SDP. When we have dismantled the cold language that surrounded the Liberal Chief Whip's appeal to you, I suggest that what we find is this: that the Liberals have 17 Members of Parliament, and the Social Democrats have only six, and that although the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not dare say it in the Chamber for fear of offending his Social Democratic friends, this matter is all about the Liberals trying to get a bigger share of the time of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House will not expect me to comment——
Mr. David Penhaligon: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I think we have had enough of this.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the House wishes to become involved in a debate on the rift — [Laughter.] —the alleged rift—between any groups in the House. I shall rule on the matter put to me by the Liberal Chief Whip. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has correctly stated, I am bound by Standing Order No. 6 and I have no authority to change it. If the House wishes to change the Standing Orders, I shall of course be bound by the change. Can the Leader of the House assist us in any way?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I can confirm, Mr. Speaker, that we are proceeding under Standing Order No. 6.
Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute Bill, Mr. Chope.
Mr. Penhaligon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a much more serious aspect of this matter than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would have us believe. One concept of Opposition Supply days is that they give the House an opportunity to discuss matters which the Government would not wish to discuss that week. The fact that the Labour party has now been wiped out in great swathes of the country means that important minorities have no opportunity to have their grievances brought before the House. For example, we have no opportunity to discuss agriculture on the Floor of

819
the House other than in Government time, and clearly the Government do not wish to discuss the incredible agreement on milk that they have just made in Europe. Yet there is no opportunity for Opposition Members who represent rural areas to raise this matter in the House. This is a much more important matter than, in some ways, the House would have us believe. Opposition Supply days are denying an important section of the community a chance to express——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting a point that I cannot answer. I am bound by the Standing Order, as has been confirmed by the Leader of the House. As to the hon. Gentleman's comment on the agreement made in Europe, there will be an opportunity to discuss that later today.
Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a helpful suggestion? You have rightly referred to Standing Order No. 6(2), which was drafted by the House and approved by it after consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure in a previous Parliament. Since that Select Committee has been set up again, would it not be for the convenience of the House for the Committee to have a fresh look at the Standing Order in the light of the present composition of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I should think that that is a wise suggestion.

Local Government Competitive Tendering
4.4 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope (Southampton, lichen): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for local authorities to put out to competitive tender certain Of their functions and services.
My reason for introducing the Bill is that I believe in better value for money in local government. Too many local authorities are still paying well above the market rate for their functions and services, and in so doing they are effectively defrauding the ratepayers. Local government is spending more than £30,000 million a year and employs aout 2·5 million people, and the latest Manpower Watch figures show that the numbers employed are increasing rather than decreasing. I have no doubt that a significant part of the money spent by local government each year —about 70 per cent. of which is on manpower—could be saved if competition was introduced where monopoly prevails at present.
Part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 made a start by making competitive tendering compulsory in some construction, maintenance and highway works. Now is the time to go further. There is a mass of evidence that competitive tendering results in substantially lower costs. Indeed, the figures quoted are staggering. By March this year well over 3 million people in 23 local authority districts were benefiting from the services of private contractors in the provision of refuse collection, street sweeping and associated services. Before competitive tendering, those 23 local authorities were paying £25·5 million for the services. The tender prices were £17·17 million, giving a gross margin of economy of £8·38 million, or 33 per cent. In anyone's language, that is much better value for money than it was. The savings ranged from a high of 50 per cent. to a minimum of about 15 per cent.
Furthermore, during the past two years, 15 local authorities have invited competitive tenders in the same area, and in-house savings have been achieved. The most notable example is Birmingham's refuse collection service. In all but one of those instances, substantial savings of 10 per cent. or more were achieved. All those examples are from Conservative-controlled authorities, and there is every reason to suppose that the percentage savings in Socialist-controlled authorities would be even greater.
Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House live in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth. Two years ago the costs of refuse collection in the two boroughs were roughly similar—£14 a head in Lambeth and £13·10 a head in Wandsworth. Now it costs £16·40 in Lambeth, which is an increase of £2·40, but it costs only £9·30 in Wandsworth, which is a reduction of £3·80. If Lambeth were forced to go out to competitive tender for its refuse collection service, it could reduce unit costs, which are now 75 per cent. higher than in the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth.
The examples that I quoted relate solely to refuse collection, street sweeping and associated services. However, similar dramatic reductions in costs have been achieved in school and office cleaning, school meals provision and other catering services, pest control, vehicle

821
maintenance, garden maintenance, caretaking and architectural services. The list is even longer than that. Most significantly, on no occasion has a local authority been worse off as a result of inviting competitive tenders.
Hon. Members may wonder why every local authority is not eager to take advantage of the savings that can be made as a result of competitive tendering. Birmingham city council has reduced its rates by about 20 per cent. in two years by introducing those market disciplines. Wandsworth borough council has put out to tender sufficient services to produce annual savings in excess of £3 million. In general, if one wishes to identify an efficient, imaginative and cost-effective local authority, one looks for the one that is putting its functions and services out to competitive tender. That is an authority which puts value for money first—even ahead of the cosy alliances of vested interests that too often prevail in our town halls.
The time has now come when the best practices of some local authorities should be extended to all. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a question last week that she was dissatisfied with progress in this area. Many hon. Members share her view and think that it is now time to shake all local authorities from their lethargy or indifference by imposing a statutory duty to seek competitive tenders. Such a duty already exists in relation to all maintenance work above £10,000 per job and all building work above £50,000 per job under the Local Goverment, Planning and Land Act 1980. The Bill that I seek to introduce would extend those principles into a wider range of local government functions and services.
The Bill is not born out of dogma. Local authorities have common law fiduciary duties to their ratepayers. The Bill seeks to give the fiduciary duty statutory legal backing so that there is a duty to put functions and services out to tender and, save in exceptional circumstances, a duty to accept the lowest tender.
Lord Scarman observed in the case of the London borough of Bromley v. the GLC that fiduciary duty
"is no more than a common justice".
Sadly, it is a common justice that too many local authorities have been ignoring.
The Labour Government wrote in their 1977 Green Paper:
"It is in everyone's interest that local services should be provided as efficiently and economically as possible. Waste, extravagance and inefficiency lead to higher taxes and lower standards of services."
I agree with that proposition. I hope, therefore, to have the support of all hon. Members in seeking leave to introduce the Bill. It is the key to better quality local government services at much lower cost.
4.12 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I rise to oppose the motion. So that it is on the record, I want to inform the House that I am sponsored as a Member of the House by the National Union of Public Employees. If any hon. Member cares to look at the Register of Interests he will see that in it. If hon. Members look in the register at the entry for the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Mr. Chope) they will find that he registers himself as a member of the greatest closed shop of all time, that of barristers, but he fails to inform the House whether a
822
statement in The Observer of 13 November last year that he was engaged as a parliamentary consultant for Grand Metropolitan is correct.
Mr. Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member seeking to intervene?
Mr. Chope: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I informed the House about November of last year that there was no truth whatsoever in that article in The Observer. Indeed, many Opposition Members retracted their allegations against me. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is not willing to do the same.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the House that hon. Members would be very wise to stick to the merits of the argument and not to indulge in personal comments.
Mr. Corbyn rose——
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Corbyn: I think the House——
Mr. Speaker: Order. In terms of good order, if the hon. Member accepts what has just been said, I think it would be wise if he withdrew his remark.
Mr. Corbyn: Of course I accept what the hon. Member has said, but it would have been clearer if he had told us that he was not involved in any organisation that is seeking to promote the privatisation of public services.
Mr. Chope: I make an unequivocal assertion that I am not involved in any group that is involved in this issue. I am a barrister and a Member of Parliament, and that is the limit.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please let us deal with the merits of the argument and nothing else.
Mr. Corbyn: The House will be aware—this the hon. Member for Itchen cannot refute—that for many years he was the leader of Wandsworth council, which has a disastrous record in the provision of public services and the destruction of jobs in that borough. There are hundreds of people in the dole queue in Wandsworth who have very deep feelings against the hon. Member for his work in destroying their jobs and their livelihoods. There are also many people in Wandsworth who rue the day that his party won control of that borough and provided them with such appalling and expensive services. His guiding light and mentor has been an organisation called the Adam Smith Institute.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is about to say that we should deal with the merits of the argument, I agree with him.
Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was going to make that point. Furthermore, I wanted to ask for a ruling from you as to whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to conduct this disgraceful attack, which has no basis in truth on my hon. Friend?
Mr. Speaker: The House and the hon. Gentleman, although he is a relatively new Member, well know that every hon. Member takes responsibility for his own

823
speech. Again, I ask the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to stick to the merits of the argument. This is a ten-minute Bill and he may speak only briefly in opposing it.
Mr. Corbyn: The reason why I point to Wandsworth council as an example is that the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen was the leader of that council during its drive for privatisation. If the hon. Member is seeking to make the rest of the country like Wandsworth council, then the rest of the country should know what things are like in the bitter experience of Wandsworth. Other people need to know how many jobs have been lost and the waste of money that has resulted in Wandsworth because of privatisation.
I shall give just one example; I would quote more if I had more time. A contract was entered into by Wandsworth borough council with Pritchard Industrial Services Limited for gardening services. On competitive tendering, the firm won the contract with a tender which was allegedly £30,000 cheaper than the direct labour tender in competition to it. I have to inform the House that less than six months later £138,000-worth of penalties had been incurred by Pritchard. I quote from the report of the leisure and amenities services committee of 27 October 1983 on the director's action:
"In view of the continuing backlog of work existing on 21 October and the inability of the contractor to meet the specification, I consulted with the chairmen and subsequently on 26 October I notified Pritchards Industrial Services Limited by letter that the council was terminating the garden maintenance service contract with effect from 1 November 1983".
That was after gardeners with many years of loyal service to Wandsworth borough council had been forced out of work and this contract had been imposed on the borough. The people of the borough were treated most disgracefully.
There is a similar dispute about privatisation involving a firm related to those contractors going on in Barking general hospital. A subsidiary company called Crothalls has announced that as of this year it will no longer pay Whitley council wages to staff that it employs in that hospital. Their wages will be cut. The basic wage will disappear. The hours of work will be reduced, but staff will be expected to do exactly the same amount of work. Conservative Members who preach to the House and to the country at large about the benefits of privatisation are forcing people on low wages to do appalling jobs that they would not think of doing themselves.
I should like to tell the House of the cost of jobs lost through privatisation. The motive for profit is not a motive for saving on the public purse, because those who become and who remain unemployed are a charge on the public purse. The motive for privatisation is to put money in the pockets of private contractors. It is as simple as that. I shall quote from two places. In Southend, where the refuse collection service previously employed 297 people, after privatisation the number is 213. In Wandsworth, the relevant figure has been reduced from 316 to 196. I can only speculate about what has happened to the others. I can only speculate about the devastation to their families as a result of their being forced out of work. In Wirral district council, the reduction is from 456 to 254.
The way in which profits are made is simple. In local authority employment, under national agreements, workers enjoy a 39-hour week with 20 days holiday, 26 weeks on full pay in the event of sickness, followed by a
824
further 26 weeks on half pay. Grand Metropolitan offers six weeks sick pay at nine tenths the basic wage and nothing beyond that.
The sordid litany goes on, with companies touring the country trying to get local authorities to hand their contracts to private enterprise, and they are operating with some strange bedfellows. One firm has a parent company. Waste Management International, registered in Bermuda, which has been found to be inadequate in its storage of toxic materials in a lagoon in Ohio. The disaster which is being caused to people there could be introduced here.
With all the propaganda and parliamentary and local authority lobbying that has gone on for local authority direct labour contracts, it is interesting to note that few have been handed to local authorities. Twice as many——
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has been speaking for longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) in presenting the Bill? In any event the hon. Gentleman has not even touched on the subject of education.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spoken for longer than the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), largely because of the number of interruptions. I am watching the time carefully. I trust that he will now bring his remarks to a close.
Mr. Corbyn: I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. The vast majority of councils which have even considered privatisation have found against it because they want control over their destiny and staff and do not want to hand those to private profit and exploitation. They do not wish to sell off the capital assets that go with their services.
Those who believe that privatisation brings savings should consider where the profit—for example, of the cleaning company called Exclusive, of nearly £1 million on a turnover of only £25 million—comes from if not from the public purse and the exploitation of the workers involved. Those of us who have experienced the problem of trying to repair council estates that were jerry built by half-baked contractors appreciate the value of public service and the motive that goes with it.
I trust that this afternoon the House will reject this tawdry move to impose the standards of Wandsworth on the rest of the country.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 170.

Division No. 220]

[4.22 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bottomley, Peter

Alexander, Richard

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Bright, Graham

Baldry, Anthony

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Batiste, Spencer

Bruinvels, Peter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buck, Sir Antony

Bellingham, Henry

Budgen, Nick

Bendall, Vivian

Burt, Alistair

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Butterfill, John

Berry, Sir Anthony

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Carttiss, Michael

825

Chapman, Sydney

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Chope, Christopher

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Moate, Roger

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Cockeram, Eric

Monro, Sir Hector

Colvin, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Coombs, Simon

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Couchman, James

Moynihan, Hon C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Mudd, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Nelson, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Nicholls, Patrick

Dover, Den

Norris, Steven

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Onslow, Cranley

Eggar, Tim

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Favell, Anthony

Parris, Matthew

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Fookes, Miss Janet

Pollock, Alexander

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Powell, William (Corby)

Forth, Eric

Powley, John

Fox, Marcus

Price, Sir David

Franks, Cecil

Proctor, K. Harvey

Fry, Peter

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Gale, Roger

Roe, Mrs Marion

Galley, Roy

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Rowe, Andrew

Glyn, Dr Alan

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Gower, Sir Raymond

Ryder, Richard

Grant, Sir Anthony

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Greenway, Harry

Sayeed, Jonathan

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Grist, Ian

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Ground, Patrick

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Sims, Roger

Hanley, Jeremy

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hannam, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Haselhurst, Alan

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Spencer, Derek

Hawksley, Warren

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Hayes, J.

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hayward, Robert

Steen, Anthony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Stern, Michael

Heddle, John

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Hickmet, Richard

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Hirst, Michael

Stokes, John

Holt, Richard

Sumberg, David

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

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Terlezki, Stefan

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Irving, Charles

Thornton, Malcolm

Jessel, Toby

Townend, John (Bridlington,

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Twinn, Dr Ian

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Walden, George

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Lawrence, Ivan

Wall, Sir Patrick

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Waller, Gary

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Walters, Dennis

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Ward, John

Lilley, Peter

Watts, John

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Lord, Michael

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Lyell, Nicholas

Wheeler, John

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Whitfield, John

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Maclean, David John

Wood, Timothy

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

Yeo, Tim

McQuarrie, Albert

Madel, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Malins, Humfrey

Mr. Michael Fallon and

Marlow, Antony

Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

NOES

Alton, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Anderson, Donald

Barnett, Guy

Ashdown, Paddy

Barron, Kevin

Ashton, Joe

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Beith, A. J.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Bell, Stuart

826

Benn, Tony

Kennedy, Charles

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

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Bermingham, Gerald

Lambie, David

Bidwell, Sydney

Lamond, James

Blair, Anthony

Leadbitter, Ted

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Leighton, Ronald

Boyes, Roland

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Buchan, Norman

Loyden, Edward

Caborn, Richard

McCartney, Hugh

Campbell, Ian

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

McKelvey, William

Canavan, Dennis

Maclennan, Robert

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

McNamara, Kevin

Carter-Jones, Lewis

McWilliam, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Madden, Max

Clarke, Thomas

Marek, Dr John

Clay, Robert

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Cohen, Harry

Meadowcroft, Michael

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Michie, William

Conlan, Bernard

Mikardo, Ian

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Corbett, Robin

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Nellist, David

Cowans, Harry

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

O'Brien, William

Craigen, J. M.

O'Neill, Martin

Crowther, Stan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Cunningham, Dr John

Parry, Robert

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Patchett, Terry

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

Pavitt, Laurie

Deakins, Eric

Pendry, Tom

Dobson, Frank

Penhaligon, David

Dormand, Jack

Pike, Peter

Douglas, Dick

Prescott, John

Dubs, Alfred

Radice, Giles

Duffy, A. E. P.

Randall, Stuart

Eadie, Alex

Redmond, M.

Eastham, Ken

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Ellis, Raymond

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Ewing, Harry

Robertson, George

Fatchett, Derek

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Rogers, Allan

Fisher, Mark

Rooker, J. W.

Flannery, Martin

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Forrester, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Foster, Derek

Sheerman, Barry

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Freud, Clement

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

George, Bruce

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

Godman, Dr Norman

Skinner, Dennis

Golding, John

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

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Spearing, Nigel

Hardy, Peter

Steel, Rt Hon David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Stott, Roger

Haynes, Frank

Strang, Gavin

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Straw, Jack

Heffer, Eric S.

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Home Robertson, John

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Howells, Geraint

Tinn, James

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Torney, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Wallace, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Wareing, Robert

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Weetch, Ken

Johnston, Russell

Welsh, Michael

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Wilson, Gordon

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Winnick, David

827

Woodall, Alec

Tellers for the Noes:

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. Robert Litherland and

Mr. Jim Callaghan.

Question accordingly negatived

Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Education
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened most carefully to the points of order after Question Time. Would you make it clear to the House that the debate continues until 10 o'clock?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know for how long the Opposition day debate is likely to continue. The hon. Gentleman's point of order is not a matter for the Chair.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move,
  That this House, aware of the concern felt by parents and teachers about inadequate educational provision in many parts of the country and believing that the future of this nation depends on developing the skills and abilities of all our people and that therefore investment in education ought to be increased rather than diminished, deplores the Government's curbs on local authority educational expenditure which, as Her Majesty's Inspectors have warned, are already threatening standards in our schools; and deeply regrets the Government's plans (Cmnd. 9143) to cut back on educational spending.
  Most hon. Members would agree that education is vital to the individual citizen because it gives him or her the knowledge, understanding, experience and self-confidence to participate in and contribute to the development of society. It is vital because it provides a means of social mobility—a way of ironing out some of the enormous inequalities and handicaps of environment and background. It is vital because, by opening up access to language and literature, to music, drama and art, to scientific, mathematical and technical achievement it helps to improve the quality and standard of life.
  Education will be equally important for the nation as a whole in the critical years ahead as North sea oil runs out —the Government have not made the best use of North sea oil—when Britain's greatest asset will be its human capital, the skills, abilities and intelligence of all of its people. The most effective way to develop that stock of human capital is through education in our schools and colleges.
  If we are right in believing that education has that importance, it follows that investment in education and spending on education should be a top priority. The merest glance at the latest White Paper, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1984–85 to 1986–87", reveals that the Government have not made education a top priority. It is clear from table 1.14 that the big increases in spending have been in agriculture, which is up 40 per cent. since 1979, in law and order, which is up 33 per cent., in defence, which is up by 23 per cent. and paying for unemployment, where the cost has nearly trebled.
  By contrast, education spending has remained roughly stable—indeed, it represents a declining share of total spending. Perhaps the clearest indication of the Government's priorities can be shown by comparing defence and education spending. In 1978–79 we were spending nearly £600 million more on education than on

  829
  defence, whereas in 1983–84 we are spending more than £2 billion more on defence than on education. In 1984–85, it is planned that the gap will widen still further to well over £3·5 billion in what are referred to in the White Paper's jargon as "cost terms".
  The Secretary of State, at a recent meeting with the executive of the National Union of Teachers, as reported in the Teacher magazine on 16 March, had the honesty to admit that education is not a top Conservative spending priority. I am impressed by the Secretary of State's honesty. To be fair, I have been impressed by that at other times. But I challenge him to provide a justification for spending so much more on weapons and the armed forces than on the education of our children. I thought that the Secretary of State might intervene at this point.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for giving way. I hope that we shall intervene no further in each other's speeches in this short debate.
  I said that the Conservative Party had fought and won two general elections on an undertaking, which we have fulfilled, to protect and increase public spending in real terms on four great sectors: defence, law and order, the health services and retirement pensions. The hon. Gentleman misleads the House and the country by misquoting me.
  Mr. Radice: No. The Secretary of State has just confirmed my words. The implication was that education was not a top priority. I stand by what I said, and the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed it.
  Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. We do not have much time.
  Mr. Freud: It is on this point.
  Mr. Radice: I shall give way, but this is the last time.
  Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman said that we do not have much time. Surely five and a half hours is ample time. This is a Supply day on education, generally admitted to be an important subject. Why is the hon. Gentleman saying that we do not have much time?
  Mr. Radice: I know the hon. Gentleman's real interest in education. His intervention was not sensible. It was more frivolous than I would expect of him. I hope that he does not mind me saying that.
  I should like to make the Secretary of State's case for him. He will claim today that the Government have managed to keep education spending roughly stable in real terms during their period of office and that spending per pupil has never been higher. However, I say strongly that it is ludicrous for the Minister to take credit for that achievement, if achievement it can be called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If Conservative Members will contain their impatience, I shall tell them the reason.
  The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the real reason why education spending has kept level is that local education authorities, particularly Labour authorities, have responded to the wishes of their communities and protected their educational budgets by
  830
  spending beyond what was planned by Whitehall. In 1982–83, local authority educational spending was nearly £400 million or 4·2 per cent. above the rate support grant settlement figure for education. In 1983–84 the figure was £700 million or 7·5 per cent. above the RSG for education. Those figures make it abundantly clear that it is the local education authorities, particularly the Labour authorities that the Secretary of State accuses wrongly of overspending, that have saved the Secretary of State and enabled him to claim that he has kept spending stable. The reality is that the Secretary of State has been basking undeservedly—and will try to bask again—in reflected glory.
  There is also the issue of falling rolls. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that, apart from the efforts of Labour local authorities, the other reason why spending per pupil has risen and there is a marginal improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio, which I welcome, is falling rolls. Even this Secretary of State cannot claim responsibility for them.
  However, I blame the right hon. Gentleman for the Government's plans to cut educational spending by 6·9 per cent. in real terms for the coming year. As spending will be falling faster than pupil numbers—they will fall by about 2 per cent. in the coming year—that implies a fall in spending per pupil, and despite falling rolls, little if any improvement in pupil-teacher ratios.
  It is possible to argue, as did a leader in The Times Educational Supplement, that the White Paper represents only plans and that the spending cuts implied in the White Paper may not happen. I hope that they do not. Sadly, however, there are already reports that local education authorities, faced by the severe targets and penalties regime and the prospect of rate-capping in 1985–86, are already cutting their budgets. In some instances, local education authorities hardly famous for being big spenders, such as Devon, East Sussex and Somerset, are cutting back. However, more progressive authorities such as Newcastle and Cleveland, which so far have done everything possible to protect their educational budgets, are also being forced to rein back. Therefore, in future the local education authorities are unlikely to be able to come galloping, like the United States cavalry, to the Secretary of State's rescue, as they have done so often in the past.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Radice: Yes, but this is the last time.
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is a central point. He said that the pupil-teacher ratio is in question. What is the ideal pupil-teacher ratio in his view?
  Mr. Radice: The ratio should be much lower than it is now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it should be. I rejoice that it has been reduced somewhat, but that is because of falling rolls, not because of a deliberate act of policy. The Labour local authorities with the best PTR record have kept the national average down. We should remember that 1·25 million pupils are still in classes of over 31 pupils. I note that no significant improvement in PTR is planned in the next three years.
  Another of the Secretary of State's arguments is that he claims that there is scope for the redeployment of existing resources.
  Mr. Barry Porter: There is.
  Mr. Radice: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the debate. He is not normally interested in education matters. We welcome him to our debate.
  The Secretary of State claims that there is scope for redeployment. It is up to him to prove his case. Is he telling the House that authorities such as Birmingham and Hertfordshire should pay for our schools by cutting the wages of already low-paid dinner ladies by between 5 per cent. and 25 per cent.? Is he still insisting, as he did in Question Time, that there can be no improvement in the PTR and book provision unless the teachers are prepared to accept a 3 per cent. increase, which the right hon. Gentleman knows is below the rate of inflation and the going rate? Most fair-minded people would call that blackmail.
  The Secretary of State's final argument is that somehow the level of resources does not matter. The Opposition freely admit and accept that, even with a similar level of resources and, equally important a similar social background, some schools and authorities perform better than others. To that extent, money is not everything. The quality of teaching is vital, but that also involves money, as the Secretary of State well knows. I should like him to admit that for the past three years his own advisers on quality and standards—Her Majesty's Inspectorate—has warned him about the impact of financial stringency on educational provision. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows the HMI reports by heart. All the same, I shall quote parts of the reports and I shall go on quoting from them until he admits that resources matter.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Not until 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Radice: No, not until 10 o'clock.
  In its latest report, the HMI said:
  "Last year's report pointed out that LEAs and schools were surviving financially by doing less and that they were obliged to take the less in the form it came to hand rather than by shaping it to meet educational priorities. Even with evidence of much sharper management, that is the ground that is being held. It is characterised by levels and standards of resources which are sometimes inadequate to maintain the status quo (already limited in many cases); by significant disparities between and within schools; and by schools in general being less than well placed to respond constructively and enthusiastically to the many calls for educational improvement and change that come from the education service itself and from parents and society, and which often require either extra educational range or diversification or both."
  The inspectorate reported that in primary schools there were shortages in remedial teaching, in mathematics, in science in music and in art and design. In secondary schools there were also shortages of specialist teachers, as shown in a quarter of all returns made to HMIs for individual schools.
  At primary school level, book provision was judged to be unsatisfactory in two-fifths of local education authorities. At secondary level it was even worse—unsatisfactory in three-fifths of local education authorities. There were significant shortfalls of materials and equipment in both primary and secondary schools. As expenditure is squeezed, "pay as you learn" is increasing. Conservative Members do not object to parents having to pay for education directly out of their own pockets, but we reject the view that a child's right to decent educational provision should depend on where he or she lives.
  Members will know from their own authorities and from correspondence with parents and teachers that the overall provision is likely to worsen rather than to improve
  832
  in the coming year. We already have examples of local authorities who are cutting back. East Sussex is cutting back by £1·7 million. This will mean a loss of 150 teaching posts—I admit that one-third of these are due to falling rolls but two-thirds are not — and cuts in the school library service. Hampshire is cutting back by £800,000 which will mean the loss of 250 teaching posts and a further cut in capitation. Devon is also cutting back. It is failing to increase capitation in line with inflation, it is cutting teacher supply and it is cutting in-service training, something that I would consider very important and dear to the Secretary of State's heart.
  What is so extraordinary to my mind, however, is that, in view of the evidence provided by the HMIs and of the reports now coming in of what is being decided by local education authorities, the Secretary of State is not demanding publicly that those local authorities that are not now providing an adequate level of service bring their provision up to standard. Perhaps it is because they all happen to be Conservative authorities. Instead, he fulminates against Labour authorities such as ILEA which maintain an adequate level of provision.
  I hope that the Secretary of State has read the excellent report on improving secondary schools in ILEA by an independent committee chaired by David Hargreaves. Its proposals should be of great interest to the Secretary of State and I hope that he and his Minister have already read them. The report is one of the most important to have been produced in recent yars. It points out that the Inner London education authority has exceptional problems, including a much higher average level of pupils from one-parent families, greater deprivation and poverty and one in six pupils without English as a first language.
  The report concludes that, if the committee's proposals for reform are to be implemented, ILEA must continue to maintain its level of provision. In a warning to the Secretary of State, who persists in his ludicrous plan to abolish ILEA and to cut its budget—or does he persist in it? One does not know from the reports one reads—
  Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, I do.
  Mr. Radice: In that case, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will heed the warning from this committee when it comments:
  "we do not assume a decline in resources. If this occurs then the constraints against development will be vastly greater than they now are."
  Looking further ahead, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the Government's Green Paper on public spending over the next 10 years and what it has to say about cuts in education spending. I am also—and l have to say this to the Minister—dismayed by the so-called great debate on higher education which, in reality, is perceived by the Government as little more than a smokescreen for cutting provision. It is about time that the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues understood that spending on education is not, as they apparently believe, inherently wasteful, a mortal sin, something that has to be cut back. They should realise that we are a rich nation that can well afford to invest, in a steady and sustained way, in education. Even this Government project an annual growth rate of 2·25 per cent. per annum for the next five years, so, even on the Government's figures, there are extra resources. The question s riot whether we can afford to invest but whether we can afford not to do so.

  833
  As Tom Stonier, professor of science and society at Bradford university, has recently reminded us, when we educate our children we are investing in the intellectual infrastructure of the economy. When we cut back on education we cut back on knowledge, on information, on invention, in short, on all those things that we need to survive and prosper as a nation.
  There are obvious priorities for investment in education on which many could agree, such as a continued—and I stress the word—expansion of under-five provision, and improving levels of achievement in our schools. Here the Secretary of State has put forward his own plans for reform and, as he knows, we gave his proposals a conditional welcome. That is the way in which an Opposition should act and I wish that the Conservative Opposition had had more of the same attitude in the 1970s. We gave them a conditional welcome, especially as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to acknowledge that comprehensive schools had improved their standards.
  However, we warned him, as I warn him again today, that his proposals will need extra resources if we are to have reform of examinations, development of the curriculum, a better quality of teaching and in-service training. These things cannot be done without extra money.
  We need a coherent solution of the problems of the 16 to 19-year-old age group which faces a crisis of major proportions — mass unemployment, inadequate training and too few staying on at school. We should also take the opportunity of any shortfall in the number of 18-year-olds to widen substantially access to higher and continuing education. This is a relevant, realistic and necessary programme for investment.
  Mr. Porter: How much?
  Mr. Radice: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience, I will tell him. There will certainly be the money and the resources required to finance such useful investment. That is not the problem. What is lacking is the right attitude of mind, the imagination and the will which, I fear, will never come from this Secretary of State and this Government. What is needed is a Labour Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which understands that investment in our children is investment in our country's future.
  4.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the improvements in the level of educational provision since 1979, including the increased proportion of under-fives in school, the lower pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools, the expansion of non-advanced further education and the growth in participation in higher education and endorses the Government's policies for raising the standards and effectiveness of the education service within the resources available "
  We must all try to be brief during this truncated debate. There are twice as many Members on the Government side of the House listening to the debate as there are on the Opposition side of the House.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: There are twice as many Conservative Members altogether.
  Sir Keith Joseph: If the Opposition really believed in the motion, there would be more support than the five members of the Labour party present.
  Mr. Sheerman: There are only nine Conservative Members present.
  Sir Keith Joseph: That is nearly twice as many.
  It appears from the speech made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that the Labour party still lives in a land of make-believe, with no financial constraints. Today, the hon. Member, who I know takes the subject of education intensely seriously, has continued the Labour party practice of making promises and half-promises to almost every interest in the land.
  I shall not spend too long on this subject, but when the Labour party was last in power its profligacy in its first years led to the arrival of the International Monetary Fund and, as a result, sharp cuts in public expenditure, including one of no less than 4 per cent. in real terms in education in one year. The last Labour Government belatedly recognised reality in their last public expenditure White Paper. They then announced plans for education that meant an increase in real terms of barely 1 per cent. for the next three years. They called for economies to be made on running costs in schools and for a reduction of nearly 20,000 in the number of teachers as rolls fell, raised charges for school meals, imposed a cut of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure on schools and a cut in previous plans for student numbers in higher education. That was the Labour party's record after a few years in office.
  Today, the Labour party has discovered a new word with which to justify its policy of profligate spending. They call it "investment". However, there is no virtue in investment unless it is effective investment; there is no merit in investment for its own sake. It is a means to an end, in this case the means to good education. There is no evidence that the Labour party has understood that, while resources matter, much better use can be made of the vast resources available to education.
  I shall show now what has been done in the past few years, and I shall meet squarely the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Durham, North. Let me remind the House of a few statistics. Since 1978–79 — the last Labour Government year — the number of pupils has fallen by about four times as much as spending on schools. In other words, the Government have deliberately kept their reduction in spending on education to only part of the reduction that has occurred in school rolls. This means that expenditure per pupil in real terms is at record levels, having risen since 1978–79 by nearly 13 per cent. in primary schools and by 9 per cent. in secondary schools.
  Secondly, the pupil-teacher ratio in January 1979 was at 18·9:1. I am glad to say the pupil-teacher ratio this year stood at 17·8:1—a substantial fall. It is now at its best level ever. Thirdly, a slightly bigger proportion of the under-fives are in schools than ever before. Fourthly, substantial resources have been made available to meet rising demand for non-advanced further education.
  These and other improvements—for example, in the provision of books, which rose by nearly 10 per cent. in real terms in 1982·83 — have been accompanied by savings in less important educational sectors and services. Expenditure on school meals has been cut by nearly a third in real terms in the past four years, wile the poorest families continue to get free meals. The rate of removing

  835
  surplus school places has accelerated. If all local authorities followed the example set by the most efficient, the available resources would go that much further.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North said that these figures are true only because of overspending, largely by Labour local education authorities. I fear that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. He has forgotten that the Government put aside what was called an unallocated margin for local education authority expenditure. Appropriating legitimately, for the purpose of the argument, the same proportion of that unallocated margin as is represented by the educational share of local authority expenditure, there was not an overspend to anything like the extent that the hon. Gentleman claimed. There was overspending of about £250 million, but I have to tell him—alas, with some regret—that some of that was Conservative overspending. It was not all Labour. The Government deliberately planned for the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio and deliberately reduced the spending on schools by significantly less than the fall in the pupils in those schools. That is why the Government are entitled to take some credit for the record levels of pupil-teacher ratio, and as I shall show, the record level of class size.
  Mr. Radice rose——
  Sir Keith Joseph: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman only one intervention.
  Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that local authorities have spent more than he planned they should spend and that therefore they—as well as the falling rolls — must take much of the credit for the increased spending per pupil and for the decline in the PTRs? The Secretary of State must give them some of the credit. I am disturbed that the Secretary of State is now planning for a reduction in the cost per pupil and for little improvement, if any, in PTRs.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Calculating on my feet, I can give credit for the lower pupil-teacher ratio to the extent of about a third of the overspending of local education authorities.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North laid much stress on the HMI reports. We have read them; they contain many things that are satisfying and many that are not. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I doubt whether many teams of Ministers in the Department of Education and Science over the years have read all the HMI reports. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister scrupulously read every one when she was in that Department, but I beg leave to doubt whether every one of her predecessors did so.
  The HMI report from which the hon. Member for Durham, North quoted related to the autumn of 1982. I am glad to say that there have been significant improvements since then. For instance, there was a sharp rise of about 10 per cent. in the provision of books in the year 1982–83. The report for the year ending autumn 1983 will be published later this year. I have no idea what will be in it, as it is entirely the product of the HMI.
  I agree with the hon. Member that the recently published Hargreaves report on secondary education in ILEA, which I have read, contains many good things. I am glad to see the attention that the report gives to the issue
  836
  that the Government take most seriously — the importance of raising the standards of secondary education for all abilities.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Durham, North that, despite his doubts, there is scope for further redeployment within existing spending. I have some evidence that hon. Gentlemen will surely take seriously. In 1982–83, 15 local education authorities succeeded in reducing their cash expenditure on school meals by between 20 and 32 per cent. below their 1979–80 level while maintaining a full meals service. I am not taking into this calculation the three authorities that went further than that, and saved more money. Had all authorities reduced net expenditure by 20 per cent. —I am taking the lower end of the bracket — below the 1979–80 level, more than £70 million could have been freed for other purposes. What those 15 local education authorities have done—they are not even all Tory authorities — could surely be done throughout the country by other local education authorities.
  I shall not talk today about the possibilities of saving which have been demonstrated to different extents throughout the country in heating, in the speed with which surplus places are taken out of use and even—although one has to go gingerly about this—in cleaning services. It is regrettably true that savings now made by many local education authorities would have to be used to help them get down near to their targets, to avoid paying penalties. However, that only reflects the folly of some local education authorities in refusing to redeploy from overspending unnecessarily in some part of their services at an earlier date.
  I have to acknowledge, before hon. Members seek to interrupt me, that some local education authorities have sought efficiency over the years, and have precious little scope left now for redeployment. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recognised their legitimate expectations in the debate on local government that took place a few weeks ago.
  I want to emphasise again that the pupil-teacher ratio is at the lowest —the best—level ever, 17·8:1. The improvement is even sharper than the Government planned, to some limited extent because of the overspending to which the hon. Member for Durham, North referred.
  The size of classes is a record low, with significant, if not enormous, falls in the size of classes in the last five years. However, I freely acknowledge that, despite the best ever pupil-teacher ratio, there are constant claims that this or that element in the curriculum is at risk, and/or that not enough remedial teachers are at work. I take these points very seriously. Where this is so—I realise that it is so in some places—I believe that, at least in some cases, the problem arises because the available teachers are not being used to the best effect. There are important and difficult management responsibilities here for local authorities, head teachers and heads of department. h may be that in some cases too much of the improvement over recent years in the pupil-teacher ratio has been used for a general reduction in class sizes, and that marginally larger classes would enable more remedial teaching to take place, and the curriculum to be better protected, without taking away from the important lesson preparation and other work that teachers have to do. It is only by some such analysis——
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
  Sir Keith Joseph: No, I shall not give way. I am stating something that I believe to be true. We can debate it another time, but there is not time today, if hon. Members are to have a chance of speaking in the debate.
  The difficult task of teacher deployment has a relationship with the protection of the curriculum, and with the provision of remedial teaching, and the fall in the pupil-teacher ratio in recent years should give scope for good management to protect the curriculum and remedial teaching.
  As important as the good management of teaching resources is the effectiveness of schooling as a whole. That is why I wish to remind the House briefly of the north of England programme of the Government, a programme announced by me on behalf of the Government at the north of England conference in January this year. This is a five-pronged programme, including the reform of teacher training, more and better in-service training, an agreed curriculum which would be of great help to teachers and pupils and a transformation of examinations over the next five years, I hope, involving a move towards grade-related criteria that will present pupils of all levels of ability with clear attainable aims at different grades.
  Those aims will represent higher standards than now in most cases, because we believe that the potential of young people of all abilities is nowhere near being fully developed at present. But, because we recognise that examinations are not all, the fifth prong of the programme is the introduction nationally, after pilot schemes, of records of achievement. The Government are now discussing these aims with local education authorities and with teachers.
  I want merely to name the other additional and parallel aims in education that the Government have. We aim at, and are starting upon, the injection of a technical and practical element in the curriculum for all abilities, and pilot schemes under the technical and vocational education initiative are in hand. We aim to seek to widen the degree to which girls take other than traditional feminine subjects in the curriculum. We aim to broaden A-levels. We aim to define more demanding primary phase objectives. We aim to encourage discussion in the classroom so as to improve articulateness. I apologise for the horrible noun, but the alternative, oracy, is even nastier. We seek to inject relevance as well as breadth, balance and differentiation into the classroom, and we seek to increase economic awareness.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have to decide by the end of June what to do about the 16-plus examination. I wish to remind the House that the numbers of higher education students are up sharply —50,000, or 13 per cent., more on a record vintage than when Labour were last in office. The demand for advanced and further education is expanding. The Government welcome warmly the initiative of the committee of vice-chancellors and principals in setting up a committee on standards in higher education at universities under the chairmanship of the vice-chancellor of Lancaster.
  It is early still in the life of this Parliament. The question is whether Labour will learn the two crucial lessons about education. The first is that money is not the only factor, although of course it matters in education. Far
  838
  more improvement can be achieved by the initiatives that the Government are taking than merely by more money, from wherever it comes. Secondly, before extra money is sought, existing huge budgets should be more effectively spent.
  I hope that the House will reject the motion, and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the amendment.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I am sure that the Secretary of State was mightily helped by his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), not from a sedentary position, but from a recumbent position, from whom I am sure we shall hear a brilliant speech on education later.
  The Secretary of State, in his inimitable way—and I always pay tribute to him—initiated the HMI reports, and we are grateful for that. I often wonder whether he did it inadvertently because they are so damning when one reads them, and it is good that they are. The Secretary of State is always saying that there is no virtue in investment unless it can be justified. That carries the oblique implication that, with regard to education, somehow it cannot be justified. We usually hear the slogan that the Prime Minister got from somewhere that one does not solve problems by throwing money at them. When the right hon. Gentleman said that about money, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said, "but it helps". Of course it helps. It does not help if large amounts of money are wrested from education — no matter how many lovely nouns such as "articulateness" are used.
  I hope that the critieria that the right hon. Gentleman applies to education are also to be applied to such matters as nuclear weapons, the Falkland Islands and the Common Market. Vast amounts of money are being thrown at those problems—and are not solving them—while money is being taken away from education. Last year, no less than £12 billion flowed from this country to our competitors. Even if only a small paert of that had been spent on education, it would have helped our economy and put people back to work.
  Various articles have been written in The Times Educational Supplement during the past few months. In December it stated:
  "Rate-capping would force local authorities to keep to Government targets for education spending and thus strip them of decision-making."
  An article in July referred to the HMI report for 1982. We are awaiting the new report, which I hope will be published soon, and which I am sure will provide a great deal of evidence about cuts. The article is headed "Cuts: holding the line—just".
  The Conservative party is eternally talking about higher standards in education. I could open practically any page of last year's HMI report and would find it deeply critical of standards—even though the HMIs do their best to be polite in their criticisms. The report states:
  "though the ground is being held, it is important to remember what ground. Last year's report"—
  the report for 1981—
  "pointed out that LEAs and schools were surviving financially by doing less and that they were obliged to take the less in the form it came to hand rather than by shaping it to meet educational priorities. Even with evidence of much sharper management, that

  839
  is the ground that is being held. It is characterised by levels and standards of resources which are sometimes inadequate to maintain the status quo, (already limited in many cases)."
  On the next page, the report talks about the cuts in in-service training and states flatly:
  "Weaknesses noted in the provision for in-service training and induction are likely to relate at least in part to shortage of advisers."
  In other words, there has been a cut in the necessary number of advisers for the vital in-service training of teachers.
  I advise all education committees, one day in each year, to visit the schools in their areas and to study what is happening in them. If they did that, they would learn a great deal about what is happening to the fabric of the schools — for example, the lack of painting. Many schools have not had a proper coat of paint for 12 years.
  As I have often said, practically all the primary schools have lost their remedial reading teachers. Conservative Members talk about raising standards of education while they cut the opportunities for our children in the state system to learn to read. Our children should be able to go into the secondary schools without being embarrassed by problems that have not been solved because of the lack of remedial teachers.
  Standards are bound to suffer, not least because of the Secretary of State's speech in Sheffield. The number of peripatetic music teachers and music instrumentalists, who are so necessary, is being cut. Many teachers have unemployment hovering over them. That is the reality. I accept that falling rolls have given us a better pupil-teacher ratio. The rate at which the Government wanted to sack teachers has been resisted, so they are staying in the schools until, eventually, they leave at the top end. In time, the pupil-teacher ratio will get worse.
  Once again, composite classes have been introduced into primary schools—the same classes as we managed to get rid of years ago. There is a large variation within a one-year age group, yet we find that composite classes covering a two-year age group have been reintroduced. Teachers and education administrators fought against that for years. Children are having to share books while the Secretary of State asks teachers to accept a 3 per cent. rise because, if they do not, there will not be sufficient money to buy books. Teachers are being blackmailed. They are being told to ask for less cash so that the remaining funds can be used to buy books. That is a cut in education, and Conservative Members know that. Education standards are sliding, and all the talk of standards becoming better and better will be of no use unless there are sufficient teachers.
  I want to compare the lack of proper investment in education with the massive investment in private education. Massive amounts of money are being taken from our children for the assisted places scheme. In those schools, the pupil-teacher ratio——
  Mr. Porter: What ratio does the hon. Gentleman want?
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, among his other mutterings, asks what ratio I want. I want the same ratio in state schools as there is in private schools, where the children of Conservative Members are looked after magnificently with small classes. The classes in the state schools are so large that they present a danger to the education of our children.
  840
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East asked a question last February about the assisted places scheme. Most people think that there are only three or four places in each private school. Some private schools are verging on having 50 per cent. of their children in the assisted places scheme. Well over 100 schools have more than 20 per cent. of their children in the assisted places scheme. Money that should be invested in the state system —money from taxpayers, who do not know where their money is going—is being given to an elitist group to strengthen private education at the expense of the education of our children.
  We need more investment in education. It is a wonderful area in which to invest. Too much investment is going to private education while there are cuts, cuts and more cuts in the state system. We ask the Secretary of State once again to study his Sheffield speech, and especially the aspect — which he did not develop sufficiently—of money. He must realise that investment in education, even if a little of it is frittered away here and there, is necessary if the fabric of education is to be held together and, I hope, advanced.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Derek Spencer: I think that I can claim that I have done my bit in Leicester to improve the pupil-teacher ratio. My opponent whom I defeated last June is now teaching in a school in that city. If we had really favoured the private sector at the expense of the public in the way the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has just declared, I cannot think that the 9 June result in Leicester, in which two Conservative Members were returned and his party lost two Members, would have been what it was.
  There are important lessons for the Labour party to be drawn from the educational experience in Leicester in the past three or four years. Although that experience comes out of the private sector and has given rise to an increase in the private sector, the lessons are for the public sector as well. It cannot be claimed that Leicester is an area that has been under-resourced from the point of view of public education. In my constituency, where 28 per cent. of my constituents are of Asian origin, there has been a considerable allocation of section 137 money. A number of projects which the local education authority has put forward have taken advantage of the inner area programme. The authority is a known over-spender; it proudly proclaims that it is over-spending. It had 35 more teachers in the past year than it was aware of until the fact was pointed out by the district auditer.
  Against that background, is there any glory, reflected or otherwise? Experience suggests not, because there have been two endeavours which give the lie to the claim that allocation of resources is really what education is all about. The first such endeavour is the setting up of the grammar school in Applegate street, starting in 1981. This was set up, in the teeth of the recession, by a group of private individuals. It got hardly any money from industry; it was a charitable trust set up by a number of private individuals. The building that they purchased was a school with a respectable and honoured tradition, which had stood empty since 1980. As a result of their efforts and endeavours, that school, which was formerly the Alderman Newton boys grammar school and before that the Wyggeston boys grammar school, was bought in 1981 for £135,000.

  841
  With a loan, the building was rehabilitated, laboratories were put in, and staff were hired. They had the good fortune to get somebody who was meet for the role of waving what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science described as the magic wand —they got a Yorkshire man as headmaster. Already the school has made tremendous progress. It started with 100 children and now has 320. It is expected that in September of this year there will be 400, and ultimately it is planned to have 520. It is so ambitious that it has already applied to join the assisted places scheme. There may be the criticism that that was perhaps an over-ambitious application, but it is one which I hope that in the fullness of time my right hon. Friend will look at favourably.
  That is the first lesson for those from less-favoured places to learn from Leicester. Thus I appeal across the Chamber to the hon. Member for Hillsborough, who really ought to come with me to—[Interruption.] We regard this as a serious and important matter and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat it accordingly. It is not a matter for levity.
  A number of people attached to the Ashfordby street mosque have opened a school above the mosque. In terms of resources, it is about as under-resourced as it would be possible for a school to be. I asked one of the founders of the school what the investment was to start with. The answer was "Nothing". He said that a group of friends and he—all Moslems—clubbed together and put up £150 in the first instance. They bought some tables and chairs and some second hand books. They started with about 30 to 40 girls—because it was intended that this should be a secondary school for Moslem girls—and since then the school has expanded——
  Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spencer: Not until I have finished this point.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned me. He should give way.
  Mr. Spencer: If the hon. Gentleman does me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say, he may find that his intervention is not necessary and I shall be able to finish more speedily.
  There are now 115 children in that school and there are 50 to 60 on the waiting list. The staff numbers 12 and some of the children who attend the school are the children of unemployed people. The subscriptions to the school come in part from the Asian business community of Leicester.
  In these two examples — the grammar school in Applegate street and the Moslem girls' school in Ashfordby street—I believe that there is a lesson for the House. Before I give the lesson to the hon. Gentleman, however, I will give him the opportunity for which he asked a few moments ago.
  Mr. Flannery: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really advocating, in 1984, that we go back to the voluntary schools that he has just talked about, that we begin from nothing and set an example? Is that really what he wants us to introduce into the education system?
  Mr. Spencer: The burden of my speech is about to come, and in it I shall answer the question which the hon. Gentleman has just put.
  842
  The question is: why has it come about that people of different races, different religions, different creeds, in Leicester have felt obliged to resort to self-help of that sort? The answer is—and this is at the heart of this debate — that it is because of the way in which the Labour-controlled education authority has allocated its resources. It has quite deliberately set its face against single-sex schools, knowing that a sizeable section of the community in Leicester, irrespective of race, creed or colour, want them. Whether it be the part of my constituency nearer the country, near the Jonathan North girls school, which is over-subscribed, or nearer to Highfields, which is a predominantly Asian area, the cry is the same—"We want more single-sex provision in this city."
  That cry fell on deaf ears in the Labour-controlled local education authority until quite recently when it felt obliged to make a cosmetic response because of political pressure. Its response was only cosmetic, and due to a political change of control in the past week it is no longer in a position to decide the issue. I am confident that a Conservative-controlled education authority will be much more sensitive in its reallocation of resources, to ensure that there is proper provision for single-sex education in Leicester, which is required throughout its scope.
  The complaint in Leicester is that the resources which have been available to the local authority have not been used in the way that the people wanted. Resources were made available to it from the inner area programme and by section 137 grants but it has been said by the local people that the authority was not sensitive to its religious and social needs. They say, "You are not sensitive to our requirement for single-sex education." That is why there is an important lesson to be learnt from this experience.
  Mr. Freud: Was single-sex education requested in respect of boys or for both boys and girls?
  Mr. Spencer: By a process of elimination and by applying the ordinary rules of gender, the hon. Gentleman will find that if one has single-sex education for girls it will follow that there will be single-sex education for boys. There is a demand throughout Leicester for single-sex education for girls and boys once they have reached the secondary stage. There is a lesson to be learnt from that experience in Leicester over the past few years.
  Investment in education is so often about items other than money. The argument in Leicester has been about the way in which money is spent and not about the amount that has been available. It is around the allocation of moneys that the argument has raged. It is no good Labour Members mirroring the insensitive approach of their colleagues on Labour-controlled authorities. If they do so they will show themselves to be completely out of touch with the real education requirements of our communities.
  Without enterprise, without conviction and without energy, and with the irresolute approach of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, we can expect a lack of progress. However, if we display energy and the attitude to limited resources that has been adopted in Leicester, there is room for a great deal of progress.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: I shall not take up directly the remarks of the hon. and

  843
  learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) because I believe that Leicester has had enough publicity for one day. I wish to commend the Opposition on this, their 12th allotted day, on choosing what is perhaps the most important subject that they have yet chosen for their allocated days of debate. It will be known in the House that my colleagues and I feel badly about the small number of days that are allocated to the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, but I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) on instigating a most important debate.
  This is a debate on investment in education, and for that reason it is not just another education debate. I compliment the draftsmen of the motion because there is much within it with which it is hard to disagree. The Secretary of State, who has now left the Chamber, spoke as he so often does about money and the fact that there are bad teachers. He is fond of saying that there is no correlation between additional spending and improved standards. I take his point, but the cost-effective use of more money is better than the cost-effective use of less money.
  I am always irritated when the right hon. Gentleman prides himself on the improved pupil-teacher ratio. Much of the improvement was achieved by local education authorities causing their county councils to suffer penalty, and it is wrong to pride oneself on the achievement of something that for which the instigator was punished—by oneself.
  When the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) was a Minister at the Department of Education and Science —he is now the Minister for Social Security—he said that he knew teachers who could do a magnificent job of teaching a class of 30 and more children and that he knew other teachers who would have a riot with one dead chicken. He argued that it was therefore more important to concentrate on the quality of the teacher rather than on overall numbers.
  In this debate I feel rather like the 91-year-old lady who was recently accused of driving at 15 mph on a motorway when everyone else was driving rather quickly. I understand that this is a debate which will continue until 10 o'clock, but all around me are hon. Members who feel that something unexpected will take place. This debate can continue until 10 o'clock. I trust it will, and I hope that I do not suffer a fate similar to that of the lady of 91, who was arrested and prevented from further driving. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South, I do not feel that there are any restrictions on me. He told us that it was a short debate and that he had to move without delay from one topic to another.
  I shall move gently and begin by talking about political education. I remind the Secretary of State, who was worried recently about peace studies, of the Thompson report on youth services, which was shelved through lack of investment. The report stated that just as there are social skills which enable one to feel at home in society so are there political skills which enable one to change the system or to keep it as it is if someone else is trying to change it. The report expressed a need for a level of political literacy. I would want to know more——
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose——
  Mr. Freud: I shall not give way because this is a long debate and the hon. Member for Gainsborough and
  844
  Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will have plenty of time to advance his own arguments in his own speech. I shall give way to anyone who has already spoken because it will be fair to do so. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in catching the eye of the occupant of the Chair. He has four hours and 11 minutes in which to do so.
  Much of the political education in schools is passive and informative. I am not deeply concerned, as is the Secretary of State, about uneven political input because schools have boards of management and boards of governors, and, for better or worse these still bear party political representation.
  I should like political teaching to take place in schools. I know that it may not be even, but the one benefit of local authorities' appointing governors and managers to boards is that they can monitor the even-handed input.
  All hon. Members must have been saddened at the statistics relating to the last election. The estimated turnout of 18-year-olds was under 60 per cent. Those young people had been looking forward to their first vote for three years, but only six out of 10 exercised their right to vote. About 25 per cent. of 18-year-olds were not registered. In the second year only half of that 25 per cent. registered, and they probably registered, not because of their deep desire to vote, but because they realised that they would not receive the junk mail that one receives if one is on the electoral register and that they might miss out. It was that, rather than political awareness, that made the figures look better.
  I send 18th birthday letters to all constituents of that age on the electoral register. Frequently someone complains that they did not receive a birthday letter when all their friends did. I have to say, "That is because your parents forgot to put you on the electoral register." It ill becomes us as politicians to do so little about the instruction of young people in their political rights.
  Many of us, especially hon. Members who sat on the Committee to consider the Education Act 1981, are concerned about the non-implementation of recommendations in the Warnock report. All that the Act has done is to enshrine in law the definition of special needs. Catering for the needs of the 18 per cent. who have chronic learning disabilities on top of the 2 per cent. who are handicapped requires substantial investment. We are debating investment today.
  The problem is extraordinarily difficult. Dyslexia is a huge grey area. All hon. Members will have been asked by a constituent what is being done about a particular dyslexic child. I listened to the Secretary of State with care. It is right to say that a good teacher with a big class could take one or two more pupils and so release another teacher to handle remedial education.
  Perhaps I am most unhappy about the mentally handicapped 16 to 19-year-olds. There is no statutory provision in education for them. Some local authorities look after that age group. I hope that statutory provision will not stop at the age of 16, but will be stretched to include the 19-year-olds.
  Mrs. Warnock, as she then was, expressed a fear that local authorities would use what she said in her report to save money. She said that she was frightened that her recommendations would allow handicapped children to be integrated into schools when insufficient money or resources were available to teach them as they should be taught. Her fears have been realised.

  845
  I know of many children, because people write to me about them, who have been integrated in a normal school. They are pushed into the dining room in a wheelchair and receive only one or two hours' education a day. For the rest of the time they have to amuse themselves. That is where I should like the investment to be made.
  Hon. Members have referred to the assisted places scheme, which I have mentioned on a number of occasions. About £16·5 million has been invested in that scheme and it is spent on a small group of children in the private sector of education. The public sector could do with that amount of money, small though it is.
  I represent a rural constituency and I have been worried, recently more than previously, about the closure of village schools. I am now persuaded that in some cases the closure of small village schools is right. The principle of keeping a school for the sake of it, which was Liberal policy, must be re-examined. There are disadvantages in a school with few pupils and therefore few teachers.
  But closures should be examined on educational rather than party political grounds. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State nod his head. Closure must be granted only after full consultation with the local community. On a number of occasions, but not to an occupant of the present Front Bench, I have taken constituents to Ministers. They may have spent weeks or months working on their presentation. They bring along children and present letters from parents and governors, and samples of work. I have been sad at the perfunctory way that Ministers behave. I have heard them say that that is the second or third such case in a week. I do not accuse anyone presently on the Government Front Bench, but that is my experience of the attitude in the Department. It has made me apologise to my constituents.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) often receives letters of thanks for the courtesy and care with which he has heard a case by a delegation. Even I have been known to receive such letters. We certainly do not treat such cases perfunctorily. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), will be courteous enough to send us any such complaints at once so that if we have been in error we may learn.
  If the hon. Gentleman hears that a disabled child has been put into a normal school and has not been treated adequately in the parents' view I hope that he will send the details to a Minister in the Department—not publishing it of course—so that if we think that we can help in any way we can look into the case. I cannot promise that any of us can make things right. There can be differences of opinion, but we should like to know of any such cases.
  Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. I made very clear to his predecessors my dissatisfaction with the treatment accorded to the village school representatives whom I brought to the Department, but I repeat that none of the present occupants of the Front Bench was party to that.
  On the second point, the whole House will be grateful. I do not believe that anyone would publish the names or case histories of handicapped people. In this debate on investment in education, I am saying quite simply that there is a duty which local education authorities are sometimes unable to execute due to lack of investment. I
  846
  shall certainly write to the Department next time I hear of such a case. The Secretary of State will agree, however, that there is an inherent lack of finance which makes it impossible, unless parents are able to help out, to find the right people to spend sufficient time on the children who came into the schools as a result of the 1981 Act.
  Returning to village schools, the Government should encourage local education authorities to take advantage of falling pupil numbers not by penalising the authorities but by encouraging them to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio, to make better equipment provision and to increase nursery provision. I accept that closures will sometimes be necessary for educational and even for financial reasons, but it must not be party political, motivation should be paramount, and full public consultation should take place before any decision is reached.
  One of the greatest evils when small schools are threatened is assassination by rumour. Someone has only to mention that a school may be at risk for parents of two, three and four-year-olds to decide to send their children elsewhere. The numbers in the threatened school then fall and the education authority closes it. Too often, education officers and members of the controlling political group consult the public only after they have made up their own minds about what should be done. Consultation must be genuine and it must be seen to be genuine.
  Falling rolls should provide an opportunity for greater investment in 16-plus teaching and in general community use of schools. I am privileged to represent a county which pioneered the village school concept, which I am sure is close to the Secretary of State's heart. Such a school was not open just for so many hours per day, so many days per week and so many weeks per year. It was part of the community. The Women's Institute met there. The sports club met there, and the only playing field in the town or village was maintained by the school for the community. I support that concept and it should be borne in mind when one considers the current fall in numbers which in due course will be reversed. I know that it is easy, perhaps even essential, when in Government to relate pupil numbers to teacher numbers. Bearing in mind the needs of the community, however, the few years of declining birth rate and thus fewer pupils provides a tremendous opportunity to prepare the schools of this country for the influx that will follow. The graphs show that there will be fewer pupils for five or six years and that the numbers will then return to present levels. When closures are contemplated they should be treated as a challenge and considered in the light of community—not just youth—need. By the year 2000, 16-plus and adult courses could well be integrated into the schools. I mind education that looks too closely ahead. It should gear itself not just to the next election or the next 10 years but at least to the end of the century.
  Finally, I make a plea to the House. We must fight the philistine approach to education whereby young people are trained for employment without necessarily developing their full potential in other areas. That is perhaps where I feel most at odds with this Government's policies.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) on the subject of village schools, as I share his interest and solicitude, but I feel that I should take a wider view as we are debating matters affecting the

  847
  country as a whole. I echo the hon. Gentleman's congratulations to the Opposition on devoting half a Supply day to this subject and I share his gratitude for that, although I am a little suspicious about the motives of the Opposition as they sometimes seem less interested in education than in agitation.
  Some Conservative Members suspect that some Opposition Members are Marxists. I believe that that is sometimes rather a charitable view as, although Marxists are wrong, they are rigorously wrong. So often what is lacking among the Opposition is any kind of rigour. Instead, we have a kind of vulgar Marxism. That is not intended to be discourteous in any way. Marxists are very rich in the vocabulary of abuse and I borrow the expression from them. That is germane to the debate because vulgar Marxists think in simplistic, materialist terms about issues such as education. They believe that economics is everything and they take a crude, simple, economic view of Marx.
  Let us suppose for a moment that not all Opposition Members are Marxists. Let us assume that some of them are Socialists. That, too, is germane to the debate as one of the most impressive Socialists in Europe now is President Mitterrand of France. Unlike the Opposition, he does not worry about the need for a lick of paint on some of the schools. He makes unprecedented announcements from the Elyséee about the need to improve the quality of education and specifically historical education in France. I find that courageous and impressive, be he a Socialist or otherwise. The Opposition have a great deal to learn from other Socialists in Europe, who are concerned more about quality than about the condition of the paintwork.
  I do not wish to sound dogmatic in my turn. Economics matters. Money clearly matters. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who led for the Opposition, made an important point when he referred to the recent publication of the Government's Green Paper on priorities in public spending and taxation. Much has been said about books in today's debate. The Green Paper is a very important book and is far more readable than many people think. It shows that we now have a Government with the courage and foresight to look ahead and to consult the people of this country about priorities. It is well worth reading. It also shows that we have the first Government in decades to have a coherent economic policy.
  I go further. To some extent I support what the hon. Member for Durham, North implied about the need to consider priorities overall. Like all hon. Members, I can see the problems in education in my constituency. I know where I should like more money to be spent and I can see where a lick of paint would be useful. At the back of my mind, however, is the Green Paper. I believe that we are right to be rigorous in education.
  We can explain that to people in this country only if we are rigorous in other areas. We must be rigorous in our defence spending. In that context, I welcome the recent measures of the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that he gets value for money too. We must be rigorous in regard to Europe—thank goodness, thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister, we are—and in regard to the Health Service. In all those areas, we are seeking quality and value for money. We are not hard-faced. We are being sensible, because we have a coherent economic policy.
  To that extent, I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Durham, North. The Government must be careful in presenting our policies on education, and must
  848
  make it clear that we are not singling education out for harsh treatment but that what we are doing is part of a coherent pattern. The problem is often a one of emphasis and communication. It is not unreasonable, when we are spending more per pupil than every before, to ask for a reasonable return on that investment. It is not reasonable to ask the taxpayer to cough up £14 billion and expect him to ask no questions. It would be odd if other major public spenders, such as the military, took that attitude but is one that, as a relative newcomer to the world of education, I often encounter.
  Parents know what is important, even if some Opposition Members do not. When parents express anxiety about education, they are anxious — in my experience—not about money, but about standards of discipline, and quality of teachers. The real investment in education is not to be measured only in terms of money but in terms of higher standards. Real investment is investment in better teachers. Real investment in the future means getting away from the tired old egalitarianism of the past and into something much more dynamic and realistic. I do not want to indulge in too much party polemic—although there is a place for it. Education is too important for that.
  So far, the debate has concentrated too much on money and statistics. We all know that the real problems lie elsewhere. The Opposition sometimes suggest that money is a substitute for individual effort and excellence. That attitude could do real damage. We would be fooling people if we led them to believe that there were so.
  I wish to make two concrete points. First, both sides of the House will agree about the importance of the quality of the teachers. One does not have to be a Marxist to recognise there is a link between quality and financial incentive. I am glad that ways are being sought to reward the most competent teachers and to give them some hopes for their future careers and some recognition in terms of pay.
  Those ideas may not be welcome in those quarters of the teaching establishment where competition in any form — whether between pupils or between teachers — is suspect, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not allow that hostility to hold up progress on that front. I recognise that there may be financial problems, but, thanks to our coherent economic strategy, there may be a little bit more to be spent at the margins in the next few years. I hope that it will be spent on the quality of education and of teaching. I would leave the paintwork for a year or two more. I am not opposed to paying teachers more, but the structure of the teaching profession could be dynamised in other ways, and the extra money could be used as an incentive.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the quality of teachers. We all want to improve that quality. However, it is fairly easy to agree about the difference between an excellent teacher and a hopeless teacher, who should not be in the classroom at all. It is much more difficult to differentiate between average teachers. That could lead to divisions within the profession. Also, one should remember that some children relate to one person and some to another, and that someone who is not a good teacher for certain pupils may be excellent for others.
  Mr. Walden: I recognise those problems. The area is a complex one. However, the existence of those problems, which is not in doubt, should not be used as an excuse for inactivity.
  Secondly, we are now rightly emphasising technology and science. For reasons that I do not have to spell out, this is an essential new development and is in the interests not only of the country but of the future of education. However, I am worried about the exclusive terms in which the Secretary of State's recent speeches on this theme seem to be interpreted in some parts of the education world. the new emphasis is a corrective stress. It is not a takeover bid by science against the arts. We do not have to make a simple choice between arts and sciences, but there may be conflicts about time, energy or resources, and as a newcomer to the world of education, perhaps I may be allowed to suggest a simplistic solution. One solution may lie in greater individual effort by the teacher and the pupil, or, in other words, in the theme of increased expectations which sums up what is vital in education today.
  I recently hazarded to some senior educationalists the suggestion that a little more homework might be called for to cover any conflict between the arts and sciences. It might cut into the three and a quarter hours that the average child spends watching television, but such a sacrifice is, perhaps, to be encouraged by teachers and parents. The reaction to my suggestion was one of shocked surprise. Clearly I had touched on an educational taboo. There are many such taboos. I was therefore glad to read, by chance, a letter in The Times the next day from Dr. Rice-Evans. I do not know Dr. Rice-Evans, and I did not put him up to it. He said, in talking about the need for
  "a wider sixth form curriculum",
  that we might
  "require all university candidates to offer five A level subjects (at their present standard), three in their mainstream and two to broaden their horizons. Thus a potential scientist might take, say, Latin and economics in addition to three sciences".
  Dr. Rice-Evans continued:
  "To achieve this an accelerated and more demanding pace would be required throughout a pupil's school career, but especially in the primary schools which now compare so unfavourably with preparatory schools."
  That may be a terrible thing to say, but we must put aside all class inhibitions and recognise that it is more than likely to be true.
  Finally, I should like to summarise the Government's position, as I understand it. The Government are asking for better standards from fewer children with the same amount of money. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable demand. I am sure that parents will not be scared into taking a different view by the vulgar Marxists on the Labour Benches.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Sean Hughes: Conservative Members often refer to politics as the art of the possible, wrongly attributing the term to Rab Butler, but I wish that the Government would realise what is possible. Instead, they seem to be obsessed with the idea that public expenditure is evil and must be curbed. I happen to believe that "public expenditure" are not dirty words. That is not to say that I believe that throwing money at a problem solves it, but some problems cannot be solved without money. It makes sense to spend money on educating people to develop their talents and skills, not just to develop talents which can be harnessed for the benefit of
  850
  the national economy but to enable people to become rational and civilised human beings. It worries me that in education debates we become so bogged down in the minutae of economic jargon that we sometimes miss the argument.
  I can produce statistics to prove that less money is being spent on educating children in areas such as mine, which suffer from acute deprivation. The education budget in my borough has been reduced. Next year Knowsley will spend £52,500 less on 16 to 19-year-olds in non-advanced further education; that is a reduction of 18·5 per cent. in cash terms, or 23·5 per cent. in real terms. The total net expenditure on education will increase by £363,600, which is a 0·5 per cent. increase in cash terms but a 4 per cent. reduction in real terms. There will be a reduction of 6·7 per cent. in cash terns on equipment, tools and materials in secondary education, which is an 11 per cent. reducion in real terms. All this comes about because the borough forecasts that there will be no increase in the percentage of income funded by Government grants, because teachers' and staff wages will not be increased and because the authority will spend less on administration, supplies and equipment.
  In any civilised society, we must begin with some shared assumptions. It is a common goal that everyone should be allowed to enjoy what a civilised society accepts as the finer experiences of life. Hon. Members will accept the importance of reading. I recall that the Bullock report stressed that the ability to read was crucial, not just because we have become a society of form-fillers but because the inability to read seriously impinges on the freedom of the individual. Had Lord Bullock visited my constituency, he would have found an entire culture based on form-filling. Since many of my constituents depend on benefits, they must wade their way through a series of obstacles that would make the Grand National look like a flat race.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I ask this question entirely neutrally, since I do not know the answer. Is the number of children in Knowsley increasing or decreasing? If we knew that, we could make a better judgment about the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave.
  Mr. Hughes: The number of children is decreasing, but that does not weaken my point.
  The ability to read, scan and precis is not a luxury in my constituency but a prerequisite for survival. However, the twist as usual is that we have greater problems in that area than in most others because the stark, unchallengeable, fact is that millions of children in one of the most advanced and civilised societies in the world never read books outside of school. The rich variety of experience, as well as the sheer pleasure to be derived from literature, is denied to many, yet we blithely accept suggestions which show that on the altar of public expenditure cuts the promotion of reading will be sacrificed. In view of the time limit, I shall produce no more statistics to prove that that is happening, but this year Knowsley would have to spend 19·3 per cent. more on equipment than it did in 1979 just to keep up.
  Conservative Members may produce statistics to try to show that matters are not that bad. However, I spent 12 years teaching in a large comprehensive school and I can tell the House that there were not enough books to go round. The idea that every child has a textbook in his desk

  851
  or satchel for every subject is not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said. When I was head of a history department, I could not allow more than one class in one year to take home textbooks. We did not have enough books to allow three classes to use them in the same year. That is what is happening in our least prosperous areas. That is what the percentages mean and that is the problem that the Government are exacerbating.
  I appreciate that elections will not be won on manifesto commitments to increase literacy, but I believe that it is a crime to deny people the tools to develop their reading ability. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) to talk about quality in education and to call for a return to basic standards. Nothing is more basic in a civilised society than the ability to read. but the Government's plans will do nothing to encourage its development. That is why I hope that the House will support the Opposition motion.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. David Model: I wish to welcome some recent events in education which run counter to much of what has been said by Opposition Members. The first event is the 350 new posts created in universities, which will come into effect this October. Adding the new posts that were created last October, there will now be 592 new posts mainly in the sciences, but not entirely, which will benefit industry and universities. More are to follow. Secondly, I welcome the announcement that new posts will be created in information technology. That is good for the universities and polytechnics, and I hope that it will mean closer liaisons between the two, possibly leading to mergers of some institutions.
  I also welcome the increase in funds to the adult literacy and basic skills unit. By 1986–87 the provisions will have increased to £2 million, and I especially welcome the fact that the unit can now sponsor local development projects and can give small grants to help the establishment of voluntary organisations. I admit that the unit asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for more funds, but in his letter of 6 March he said that beyond 1985 it was impossible to provide the level of financial support for which the unit asked. However, the increase shows the Government's commitment to improving education. If in 1985–86 unemployment is as high as it is now, the Government appear not to have closed the door to increased funding in that area.
  Thirdly, I welcome the fact that in-service training grants will be extended to further education teachers who will take part in the youth training scheme as it moves into its second phase in September. If we can provide better qualified further education teachers, we must then ask whether more youngsters will enter colleges for the YTS this September. I believe that they will. If that happens, I hope we can iron out possible problems of local authority spending on this project and the whole question of rate support grant.
  Following on from that, there are now in-service training grants for schoolteachers and for further education teachers. The next natural step, which I hope the Government will take, is to have in-service grants for lecturer retraining and training in universities.
  The recent decision by the Department to let polytechnics and local authority further education
  852
  institutions sell their expertise on a commercial basis is very welcome, because it will improve not only the links of those institutions with local industry but also their funding. The important point is that the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development report said that any proceeds accruing to institutions should remain with them and not be offset by clawback arrangements. In some areas polytechnics and colleges of further education will be able to sell much of their research and thereby generate funds. I hope that, because some are doing well, their funds will not get tangled up in rate support grant calculations and that local authorities will not suffer because they have generated so many funds from polytechnics and colleges following the Government's welcome decision to let them go into this sphere.
  I want to say just a word about capital and equipment spending. The Government have said that there is a 5 per cent. increase in equipment grants for universities in 1984–85 compared with 1983–84. That immediately raises the parallel question of the amount that may be spent in schools on books and equipment. Much of this is often tied up with the removal of surplus places. Some local education authorities may say that they could generate income by allowing surplus places to be used for other activities out of school hours. It is not beyond the wit of LEAs to do that. Bearing in mind the fact that the Manpower Services Commission and colleges of further education could probably make use of the surplus places, local education authorities should satisfy themselves and the Government that they are not being inactive about the problem of surplus places and that they are generating income which could be put to good educational use.
  In relation to the Green Paper, Cmnd. 9189, there should be more co-operation between the CBI and the TUC to get people who are leaving industry to go into teaching. We must urgently consider support for people who go on accredited courses while they are unemployed and who may render themselves disqualified for some supplementary benefit. Industry should be allowed the same sort of tax relief if it funds university development as is available in the United States and Europe.
  On future education spending, the Green Paper says:
  "There will be pressure for a further increase in the participation of under-fives, though it is currently at a record level of 40 per cent."
  In their compulsory school years children should have access to the most modern teaching techniques and to the best teaching possible. What the Government have recently done shows that they are working towards that. When considering what we should do in relation to the Green Paper, we should remember that, vital though preschool provision is, it is the compulsory years that are most vital. By funding better in-service teacher training and the use of microcomputers in schools, the Government are giving an absolute commitment to raising teacher quality and educational opportunities.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The Opposition motion expresses a view about
  "educational provision in many parts of the country"
  and refers to the future of the nation. Therefore, it goes wider than education in Great Britain. The curbs are designed to have an effect on the whole of the United Kingdom.
  The general effects have been dealt with by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), speaking for the

  853
  Opposition, and by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has put the Government's case in his customary civilised manner. I was disappointed that neither of them, admittedly in the short time at their disposal, dealt with student grants. However, I trust that the Secretary of State and his Department will take account of what has been said about this aspect of the Budget in the debate. The likely changes in the payments of student travel expenses are of perhaps the greatest concern to two categories, first, students from Northern Ireland attending English universities, and secondly, students from England and Wales attending Northern Ireland universities.
  Mr. Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that at Question Time student travel grants were referred to by me and that my question was answered then by the Minister?
  Mr. Molyneaux: I appreciate that and I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting it on record.
  In regard to the first category that I have mentioned, many Ulster students have to study at universities in Great Britain because their chosen courses are not available in Northern Ireland. That is understandable when one recognises that, excellent though they are, our two Northern Ireland universities cannot be expected to offer a range of courses comparable with those available at national level.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) has been conducting correspondence and making representations on behalf of this category of Ulster students to the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for education, pointing out that a Hate rate travel allowance would be grossly unfair to those students who have to make even limited journeys by air and sea to Northern Ireland. In a letter the Northern Ireland Minister has made the astonishing statement that the Government propose to be guided by the principle of parity — not parity with Scotland, but parity with England and Wales. In Scotland, of course, conditions much more closely resemble those affecting Ulster students. The Minister, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), went on to admit frankly that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had indicated that he had no intention of making the corresponding changes in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Education and Science may say that the problem I have described is one for his relevant colleague in Northern Ireland. Even if that is the case, I trust that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will recognise the injustice of the Government opting for parity with England and Wales rather than with Scotland.
  The Secretary of State will not, I know, seek to divest himself of responsibility for the second category to which I referred, students from Great Britain attending universities in Northern Ireland. I champion their cause because Northern Ireland people welcome the contribution of these young people to the vitality of our university life. The significance and scale of that can ge gauged from the fact that one third of the students attending the New University of Ulster come from Great Britain. The cross-fertilisation of ideas has been of great benefit to all students from the component parts of the United Kingdom. It cannot continue if travel expenses are to be pegged at what is probably an inadequate flat rate for even England and Wales. Government Departments must think again.
  854
  The Ulster Unionist party broadly supports the Conservative ethos of freedom of choice. Two important categories of students will be deprived of the right of freedom of choice, the right to attend the university of their choice and the right to engage in the course of their choice. They are likely to be compelled to restrict their choice to a university to which they can afford to travel if the flat rate travel allowance is adopted.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I regret to have to rise at this time, so curtailing the debate, for I appreciate that many hon. Members who have sat throughout the discussion will not have an opportunity to speak.
  It has been a well-informed and interesting debate. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State gave a disappointing response to our call for a discussion on investment in education, the need to expand education and talk about the future. One wonders what future the right hon. Gentleman sees for education or, for that matter, for himself as Secretary of State. It would have been nice if he had spoken more about the future and less about the past.
  It would also have been nice if the right hon. Gentleman had spent some time discussing the morale of many of those who work in education. He must be aware that in the universities, polytechnics and higher education colleges there is much concern about jobs; a great deal of time is being taken up by people talking about their future employment prospects rather than with getting on with research or teaching. The same is now true of further education, where Training for Jobs has caused much despondency and concern.
  Throughout our schools, right through to the nursery level, we see the same picture. Among elected representatives on education committees, administrators, teachers, students and parents there is a considerable loss of morale. The right hon. Gentleman might have spent more time endeavouring to raise morale and enthusiasm.
  The Secretary of State seemed to go back to doing what spoils this House on too many occasions, the "yah boo" of what one party or another did when in government. That was unfortunate, because while I accept that the Government are spending more on education than was spent at the time of the last Labour Government, that should be the case, considering, for example, the oil revenues that are now available. The real test is whether either party spent enough.
  Considering the number of people who are still totally illiterate, the under-achievement of many girls in the sciences, the shortage of skilled people for the microelectronics industry, and youngsters who are inarticulate and lacking in confidence, I fear that we have not achieved enough in education, either in terms of spending or quality. We must give young people confidence from education not only to cope with the world but to do well in it, and too many of them lack that confidence.
  We must, therefore, accept that we have not done as well as we might and that to compare the performance of one party with another is not a useful exercise. Whatever we in this House say and however we vote, we will not change history. Our aim in this debate should be to talk about investment in education for the future.
  In their amendment, the Government talk with pride about the number of under-fives in nursery education. That

  855
  is an excellent achievement and we hope that it will be maintained, particularly as the number of under-fives increases. May we have a categorical assurance that the Government plan to maintain the proportion of under-fives in nursery schools?
  The amendment also refers to the lower pupil-teacher ratio, and we are pleased about that. However, we are not certain whether that has occurred through Government planning or by accident. In their previous White Papers, they were looking for a higher pupil-teacher ratio than was achieved, so the credit must go to the local authorities.
  The same applies to participation in higher education. Naturally, we are pleased that more people are going on to universities and polytechnics, but how much credit the Government can take for that is questionable. After all, they proposed cuts, originally of one in six, in staffing in universities and in the number of pupils at the university level.
  In other words, the Government must be careful when making claims for their achievements in education. The improvements seem to have happened more by accident than by design. Perhaps the Government should have added to their amendment words to the effect that they have increased investment in unemployment far more than they have increased investment in education.
  Although the Secretary of State said that the Government were doing well on the pupil-teacher ratio front, I suggest that they will be doing well when they have achieved the same pupil-teacher ratio in state schools as is enjoyed in the independent schools and the schools to which the Government are keen to give assistance. If it is good enough for the independents, why is it not good for state schools?
  The Government must also address their mind, on the pupil-teacher ratio question, to the way in which we managed to tunnel through the bulge and make economies of scale at that point. In other words, we cannot make economies of scale as the system contracts. For example, the Secretary of State must face up to the problem of village schools. Many of them do an excellent job and nobody would want to close them. But if the number of pupils in a school drops from, say, 40 to 30, that gives a nice reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio, but if we wish to even out the ratio across the country, we must face up to the problem of closing schools and inflicting a bitter blow on many local communities.
  Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give the PTR figure for independent schools? I have never seen it.
  Mr. Bennett: It is about 10 per cent. better than in state schools. I shall check the accuracy of that and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  The country can afford to invest more in education, for example from the oil revenues. On what are we spending the oil revenue at present? It would not be too bad if it were going on investment in British industry, but much of it is being invested abroad in industries which send goods to compete with our goods and destroy jobs in Britain. We should be investing some of that money in people and skills for the community.
  Let us consider how much the Government spend on defence. They are even now talking about dramatically increasing expenditure on armaments. There are threats to this country, not necessarily from military invasion but from economic and cultural pressures. We need not be
  856
  invaded to become economic or intellectual serfs. It is important to defend the nation not only with arms but by spending on education to ensure that we secure the intellect and skills to safeguard our position in the world.
  The Government have great enthusiasm for consumer spending, and the latest consumer boom is in computers. One need only look through the newspapers to see the pressures that are being placed on households of average and above-average earnings to buy computers. It might be better for much of that money to be spent in schools so that all children have the experience and benefit of using computers.
  For all those reasons, we should have heard from the Secretary of State how he is fighting to get more spent on education. The Government must show a willingness to secure a climate which generates enthusiasm for education. They should sing the praises of all those in education. It is right to point out that standards are rising in schools. The right hon. Gentleman should go out of his way to praise those in education who have done, and are doing, a good job. For example, many people in our universities and polytechnics are doing excellent research.
  I have been delighted by the excellent work that I have seen in the schools that I have visited in recent months. Last Friday in Oldham I visited the Freehold community school and was delighted to see the excitement and enthusiasm there among all concerned. I urge Ministers to show more enthusiasm for the quality of education in Britain and to praise those who are doing well. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will speak of those areas where he sees educational success, because I fear that too often he sells education short in harking back to the old grammar schools.
  The Secretary of State spoke firmly about wanting to expand technical and vocational education from the pilot schemes into all the schools. Will he explain where the money is to come from? Is it allowed for in the public expenditure White Paper? If not, where will it be found?
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) raised the question of travel grants and spoke of the difficulty—which does not seem to have occurred to the Government — that, if we are to have different regulations for Scotland and possibly for Northern Ireland, anomalies will arise. For example, we could find two students both staying at a university in England, one coming from Scotland or Northern Ireland and the other from England, coming under totally different travel regulations. Although they will make the same daily journey, one will have additional money in his grant while the other will not.
  I should have liked the Government to use a little of their time to open up the great debate on higher education, but all the Government's projections have referred to the fall in student numbers over the next 20 years. They have not told us about the demands of society in the next 20 years, or how many people will be required in industry and the public sector, or how many graduates will be required from the universities. I wish that the Government would change the debate and, instead of asking what will be the demands of 18-year-olds, consider the demands of our society.
  I firmly believe that the country's future depends on our having more people with higher educational skills, so I plead with the Minister, in the short time available, to consider the questions asked by the UGC and the National

  857
  Advisory Body and say, "We want to have a debate with industry about our manpower requirements for the next 20 years."
  I wanted to raise many other matters, but I shall briefly ask the Government only what they will do about educational maintenance awards. For a long time, the Government said that that was a matter for the local authorities. Some local authorities have given educational maintenance allowances, but they are now in great difficulty. If they wish to increase the payments to keep pace with inflation, they are caught by the social security regulations, which make it impossible for them to do so. I hope that the Government will take that into account.
  Fewer people stay on at school, perhaps because of the attractions of the youth training scheme. Last September, about 4 per cent. fewer pupils stayed on at school. I hope that the Government will take a fresh look at educational maintenance allowances to make sure that all those who would benefit from staying on at school take that opportunity.
  I want to take up several other issues if there is time but, first, I shall ask what the Government will do about the examination system, which is yet another area in which the morale of teachers has suffered. When I finished teaching in the 1970s, experiments were being carried out with the 16-plus examination, which was designed to be a common examination to be taken by all pupils of that age group. Now, most youngsters are asked to choose at the age of 14 whether to take an O-level, a 16-plus or a CSE course. Minister after Minister has put off the decision. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State put it off once again in his Sheffield speech. He talked about absolute standards. It may be desirable to introduce them, but it is more important that the Secretary of State should introduce a single 16-plus examination, which would avoid the problem for both pupils and teachers in having to decide which examination to take. I very much regret that the Government did not pay more attention in the debate to the future needs of the country to invest in education.
  The people have a right to a decent education, but the strength of that right lies not in justice and fair play but in its correspondence to the country's need to maximise the abilities, skills and intellect of all our people, so that we can pay our way and defend our values and beliefs in the world. Education is not a luxury, but an economic and cultural necessity. I wish that the Government would start to invest in our future—in education.
  6.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): As I listened to the contributions from the Opposition Benches this afternoon I was confirmed in a belief that I have held for some time — we in the Conservative party have succeeded in wresting from the left-wing educational establishment the forward thrust of educational ideas and concepts.
  I remember that, during the Committee stage of the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) threatened us with an Opposition Supply day at every meeting. We challenged that but we have ended up, despite the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), with only half a day's debate. The contributions that we have heard——
  Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an Opposition Supply day, not a half day—is it not?
  Mr. Speaker: I am tempted to say, "So what?" What does the hon. Gentleman's point of order have to do with the debate?
  Mr. Dunn: What we heard from the hon. Gentleman for Durham, North were not revelations about the Labour party's plans for education or expenditure levels. We have heard nothing except criticism and newspaper headlines, without the substance beneath them. The hon. Gentleman has come to the Chamber naked and is effectively indecent in his lack of educational probing, which would have been of interest to the House and the country.
  The hon. Gentleman said that education was vital for social mobility and to overcome the problems of those with a disadvantaged background. From what we know of what the Labour party would do when in power, that would not be the result of their policies. We know that they would abandon and destroy the assisted places scheme, independent schools, grammar schools, parental choice, church schools and a whole range of existing alternative provisions. The hon. Gentleman was careful to distance himself from the Socialist Education Association of which he was a liberal member——
  Mr. Radice: I am a member of that association.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman still sought to distance himself from its conclusions about the future of church schools.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) how a future Labour Government would abolish the voluntary aided and the voluntary controlled schools, as well as the independent sector.
  Mr. Flannery: I did not say such a thing.
  Mr. Dun: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but if he did not say it today he has said it before. The Government still await the unveiling of the Labour party's Model T Ford. All that we know is that they will seek to destroy our excellent opportunities for disadvantaged children. We believe wholeheartedly that we are the party of excellence in education. Labour is the party of mediocrity and the total destruction of parental choice.
  A great deal has been said today about economics and educational expenditure. I commend to the Labour party the need to investigate expenditure at every level, as approved by all education authorities. If if is necessary to save money, in the light of political and other constraints under which all authorities operate, they must consider ways of doing so. Why should not Durham county council consider the possibility of privatising more of their services, or some of them? Why should not Sheffield do precisely the same?
  Mr. Flannery: The Minister should be careful this time.
  Mr. Dunn: I am always careful when I speak to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the House rather likes him.
  Mr. Flannery: It does not.
  Mr. Dunn: When, in the 1970s, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), started the great debate on education, there was one big bang and then there was

  859
  silence. Since the election of our Government we have seen a progression towards improvement and a better profile for teachers. I accept that many teachers do a superb job. Of course, many do not. We shall continue to insist that standards improve and that a better result for expenditure is the outcome——
  Mr. John McWilliam rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether there is any precedent for the Opposition, having chosen a subject of major interest and importance for an Opposition day, seeking to move the closure to curtail the debate? They have not done so to ensure that a vote takes place in the closing minutes of the debate, but have done so when less than half of the time for the debate has expired. Is it not unreasonable for the Leader of the Opposition to ask you to accept the closure and to ask the House to decide on it merely to ensure that time that would have been available to Opposition Members to debate education is given to the Government for a subject of their choosing?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman correctly says, it is an Opposition day. If the Opposition choose to invite the House to decide whether there should be a closure of the debate, that is entirely a matter for them.
  Mr. Michael Mates(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help us? What are we to do when we cannot get into the Lobby? The doorway at the far end of the Chamber was crammed. There was a queue 10 deep. I went to the door by your Chair and then you announced that the doors were to be locked. I have been prevented from voting.
  Mr. Speaker: I am extremely sorry for the hon. Gentleman, but the doors are locked after eight minutes and unhappily the hon. Gentleman has been unable to vote.
  Mr. Mates (seated and covered): But, Mr. Speaker, there must be a procedure by which those who are trying to get into the Lobby are allowed in.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were to get into the Chamber a little earlier, he would not find himself locked out.
  Mr. Beith (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), I hope that you will he understanding of the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, which was genuine, and which, I think, arose because, for the fourth time in two days, Labour and Conservative Members were trying to go into the same Lobby at the same time. [Interruption.] I wonder whether, in the circumstances, you might extend the Division.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the last comment.
  Mr. Beith (seated and covered): I asked whether, in the circumstances, exercising your discretion, and in view of the fact that having both Labour and Conservative Members in the same Lobby creates congestion, you might extend the Division on this occasion.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not honestly think that that will be necessary.
  Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it is to become a regular occurrence for members of the Government party and members of the Labour party to vote together in Divisions, would you in your discretion consider appointing additional tellers?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that that seems to be a rather frivolous point of order.
  The House having divided: Ayes 481, Noes 17.
  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Division No. 221]

  [7.01 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Adley, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buchan, Norman

  Alexander, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Budgen, Nick

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Chope, Christopher

  Barnett, Guy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Thomas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clay, Robert

  Benn, Tony

  Clegg, Sir Walter

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Benyon, William

  Cohen, Harry

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Conlan, Bernard

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Conway, Derek

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Blair, Anthony

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Body, Richard

  Cope, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Corbett, Robin

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Corrie, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cowans, Harry

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Boyes, Roland

  Craigen, J. M.

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Critchley, Julian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Crouch, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crowther, Stan

  Bright, Graham

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Brinton, Tim

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Deakins, Eric

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

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

  Dobson, Frank

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

  Dormand, Jack

  861

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Henderson, Barry

  Douglas, Dick

  Hicks, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Dover, Den

  Hill, James

  Dubs, Alfred

  Hind, Kenneth

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hirst, Michael

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Dunn, Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Home Robertson, John

  Durant, Tony

  Hooson, Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hordern, Peter

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Eggar, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Ellis, Raymond

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Hughes, Dr, Mark (Durham)

  Ewing, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Fallon, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Farr, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jackson, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  John, Brynmor

  Favell, Anthony

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Fisher, Mark

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Flannery, Martin

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Knox, David

  Forrester, John

  Lambie, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lamont, Norman

  Foster, Derek

  Lang, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Franks, Cecil

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Lester, Jim

  Freeman, Roger

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Gale, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Galley, Roy

  Lilley, Peter

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Litherland, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  George, Bruce

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Lord, Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Loyden, Edward

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Golding, John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Gorst, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Greenway, Harry

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

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

  McKelvey, William

  Grist, Ian

  Maclean, David John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

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

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Hannam, John

  Madden, Max

  Hardy, Peter

  Madel, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Major, John

  Harris, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Maples, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Marek, Dr John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Marlow, Antony

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Haynes, Frank

  Martin, Michael

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mather, Carol

  Heddle, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  862

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Mellor, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Merchant, Piers

  Rooker, J. W.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Michie, William

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Rowe, Andrew

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Ryder, Richard

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Ryman, John

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Moate, Roger

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Moore, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mudd, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Shersby, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Needham, Richard

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

  Nellist, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Silvester, Fred

  Neubert, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Newton, Tony

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Skinner, Dennis

  Normanton, Tom

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

  Norris, Steven

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  O'Brien, William

  Snape, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Onslow, Cranley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Speed, Keith

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spencer, Derek

  Ottaway, Richard

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Parris, Matthew

  Squire, Robin

  Parry, Robert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Patchett, Terry

  Stanley, John

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Steen, Anthony

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stern, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Pike, Peter

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Porter, Barry

  Stokes, John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Powley, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Straw, Jack

  Prescott, John

  Sumberg, David

  Price, Sir David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Radice, Giles

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Raffan, Keith

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Randall, Stuart

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Redmond, M.

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Renton, Tim

  Tinn, James

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Waddington, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Robertson, George

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  863

  Walden, George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Wilson, Gordon

  Waller, Gary

  Winnick, David

  Walters, Dennis

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ward, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Wood, Timothy

  Wareing, Robert

  Woodall, Alec

  Warren, Kenneth

  Woodcock, Michael

  Watson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Watts, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Weetch, Ken

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Welsh, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  White, James

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Whitfield, John

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  Whitney, Raymond

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Beith, A. J.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Cartwright, John

  Wainwright, R.

  Freud, Clement

  Wallace, James

  Howells, Geraint

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnston, Russell

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maclennan, Robert

  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 302.

  Division No. 222]

  [7.17 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Clarke, Thomas

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clay, Robert

  Alton, David

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Coleman, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Ashton, Joe

  Conlan, Bernard

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnett, Guy

  Cowans, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Craigen, J. M.

  Beith, A. J.

  Crowther, Stan

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Benn, Tony

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

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

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Deakins, Eric

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dewar, Donald

  Blair, Anthony

  Dobson, Frank

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dormand, Jack

  Boyes, Roland

  Douglas, Dick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

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

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, Raymond

  Caborn, Richard

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Ewing, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Fisher, Mark

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Cartwright, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Forrester, John

  864

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Nellist, David

  Foster, Derek

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  O'Brien, William

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Freud, Clement

  Parry, Robert

  Garrett, W. E.

  Patchett, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pendry, Tom

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Penhaligon, David

  Golding, John

  Pike, Peter

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife,)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Prescott, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Radice, Giles

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Randall, Stuart

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Redmond, M.

  Haynes, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robertson, George

  Home Robertson, John

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rogers, Allan

  Howells, Geraint

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ryman, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Johnston, Russell

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

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Leighton, Ronald

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Litherland, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Loyden, Edward

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  McCusker, Harold

  Tinn, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Torney, Tom

  McKelvey, William

  Wainwright, R.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wallace, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wareing, Robert

  Madden, Max

  Weetch, Ken

  Marek, Dr John

  Welsh, Michael

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  White, James

  Martin, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Meacher, Michael

  Wilson, Gordon

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Michie, William

  Woodall, Alec

  Mikardo, Ian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Anthony

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amess, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Tom

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ashby, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  865

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Greenway, Harry

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Body, Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Harris, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bright, Graham

  Heddle, John

  Brinton, Tim

  Henderson, Barry

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hicks, Robert

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hill, James

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hirst, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hooson, Tom

  Budgen, Nick

  Hordern, Peter

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Jackson, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Chope, Christopher

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

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

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knox, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lamont, Norman

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lang, Ian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Colvin, Michael

  Lester, Jim

  Conway, Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Coombs, Simon

  Lilley, Peter

  Cope, John

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Corrie, John

  Lord, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  McCrindle, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Crouch, David

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute,

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Maclean, David John

  Dover, Den

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

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Dunn, Robert

  Madel, David

  Durant, Tony

  Major, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Malins, Humfrey

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Malone, Gerald

  Eggar, Tim

  Maples, John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Antony

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Mates, Michael

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mather, Carol

  Fallon, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Farr, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Favell, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Mellor, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Merchant, Piers

  Forman, Nigel

  Muyer, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Franks, Cecil

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Gale, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Galley, Roy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Moore, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Gorst, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mudd, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Murphy, Christopher

  866

  Neale, Gerrard

  Squire, Robin

  Needham, Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, John

  Newton, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Norris, Steven

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stokes, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Sumberg, David

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Pollock, Alexander

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Porter, Barry

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Powley, John

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Price, Sir David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Raffan, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Waddington, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walters, Dennis

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Ward, John

  Rost, Peter

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Watson, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Wheeler, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitfield, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shersby, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Silvester, Fred

  Wood, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Woodcock, Michael

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Speed, Keith

  Spencer, Derek

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 20.

  Dlvision No. 223]

  [7.29 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Ancram, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Arnold, Tom

  Baldry, Anthony

  Ashby, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bellingham, Henry

  867

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grist, Ian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Harris, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Body, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Henderson, Barry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hirst, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hooson, Tom

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hordern, Peter

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brinton, Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Brown, M. (Bhgg & Cl'thpes)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A,

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Budgen, Nick

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Burt, Alistair

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Butterfill, John

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Knowles, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Knox, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lamont, Norman

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lang, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lester, Jim

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

  Lightbown, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lilley, Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lord, Michael

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Cockeram, Eric

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Colvin, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Coombs, Simon

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Cope, John

  Maclean, David John

  Corrie, John

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

  Couchman, James

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Madel, David

  Crouch, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Malone, Gerald

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Maples, John

  Dover, Den

  Marlow, Antony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Mates, Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Mather, Carol

  Durant, Tony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mellor, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fallon, Michael

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Farr, John

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Favell, Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moore, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Forth, Eric

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Franks, Cecil

  Mudd, David

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gale, Roger

  Neale, Gerrard

  Galley, Roy

  Needham, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Norris, Steven

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Onslow, Cranley

  Gorst, John

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Ottaway, Richard

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Greenway, Harry

  Parris, Matthew

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

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  868

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Porter, Barry

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Stokes, John

  Powley, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Sumberg, David

  Price, Sir David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Raffan, Keith

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Renton, Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waddington, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rost, Peter

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watson, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Shersby, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Whitfield, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Spencer, Derek

  Woodcock, Michael

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. John Major and

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cartwright, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Freud, Clement

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Howells, Geraint

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wainwright, R.

  Johnston, Russell

  Wallace, James

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Loyden, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maclennan, Robert

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. Michael Meadowcrort.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the improvements in the level of educational provision since 1979, including the increased proportion of under-fives in school, the lower pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools, the expansion of non-advanced further education and the growth in participation in higher education and endorses the Government's policies for raising the standards and effectiveness of the education service within the resources available.

  European Community
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
  7.18 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): There is no doubt that this is the right moment for this debate. We are at an important stage in the history of the Community. The negotiations that have been under way since the Stuttgart Council last June are rightly seen as having a far wider significance than the sum of the individual issues, because there can be no doubt that the outcome will have a decisive influence on the shape of the Community for many years to come.
  The House will wish to consider the individual issues in the negotiations in some detail. Before I turn to those issues, let me underline the strength of this Government's commitment to the European Community. It is our conviction that membership is an essential element in our national life and that the Community's well-being is vital for Britain's prosperity.
  Last June, the people of this country made it very clear that they took the same view of that central question. Despite the economic problems that have beset us since accession, despite the difficulties of adaptation, despite the often hard struggle to ensure that the Community reflects the interests of nine and then ten member states, and not just the balance struck between the original six, there is no doubt that the British people recognise that Britain's future lies within the Community.
  In face of that clear verdict, it is all the more remarkable that the Opposition apparently still intend to take the line in this summer's European elections that
  "withdrawal remains one of the options available to Britain".
  I do not think that the House can be in any doubt why the Labour party is forming up behind that inglorious phraseology. It is presumably the only basis on which all the party's spokesmen can be persuaded to unite. I suppose that that is achievement of some kind. But I must tell them that it will not, when the time comes, enable them to avoid answering some difficult, but necessary, questions. Are we better in or out? Are we likely to have better prospects for investment in or out? Do the Opposition complain about the farm settlement because it is too expensive or because it gives too much or too little to the farmers?
  I hope that the House will hear answers to some of those questions tonight. It is not open to the Opposition simply to rest on a crude political calculation, designed to camouflage the contradictions in Labour policy. They cannot for ever take refuge behind the Kinnock word mountain. So long as they go on trying to do so, they will have nothing to offer that is remotely relevant to the needs of the Community today.
  The real task that has faced this country during the past decade has been how best to develop the advantages of Community membership to the full. We have seen a position develop in which the United Kingdom has been required to shoulder a manifestly unfair share of the budgetary burden. The Community has not developed policies in areas away from agriculture in the way that we had been led to expect. For a number of years now we have faced the need to secure a fairer deal on the budget in a series of annual negotiations.
  870
  Ever since this Government came to office in 1979, that has been one of our major concerns. We have been determined, and rightly so, to find a lasting way of avoiding that annual return of the Community to the financial barricades. We have been determined as well —in the longer term this is of even greater importance —to find ways of developing the Community's potential to the full.
  We have been seeking to fashion a fresh approach for the Community. More and more, our partners have been seeking to do the same. Many of them have come to share our concern. Our French partners have increasingly stressed their view of the need for what they call a relaunch of Community policies. We entirely agree with that approach. We have been, and are, doing all that we can to ensure that that comes about.
  That is why the Stuttgart declaration of June last year was such an important landmark. The agenda it established for the negotiations was a measure of how far the Community had already come. Stuttgart called for new policies, control on spending, an examination of revenue needs and, above all, a fair budget system. It was an ambitious agenda, which has led to many hard days and hard nights of negotiation in Foreign Affairs and Agriculture Councils and at two European Councils.
  Europe has not yet completed that work. Despite the headlines proclaiming failure, the House will, I think, have detected a strong feeling, growing throughout Europe, that the Brussels European Council marked real, and I hope decisive, progress down that road. I should like to remind the House of the notable part played at that Council by the French presidency in promoting that progress.
  The Brussels summit has brought the Community within measurable distance of what may come to be seen as a historic agreement. Agreement on substantial and, as the House knows, inevitably painful progress has been made towards reform of the common agricultural policy, to make it more responsive to market forces.
  We have come close to agreement on effective control of Community spending, both agricultural and other expenditure. We have reached agreement on a number of new policies, and on the development of existing policies that are the key to the prosperous and dynamic Community of the future. Many of those new policies—this is of fundamental importance — do not call for any fresh Community finance.
  Finally, we have made substantial progress towards agreement on a revised method of financing the Community that will ensure that future development is not held up by annual arguments about the sharing of the budgetary burden.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I do not know how much detail my right hon. and learned Friend intends to give about the new means of finance in the Community, but we should be grateful if he could go into a great deal of detail because many people have been perplexed and, to some extent, confused by what has been coming out of Brussels. Could my right hon. and learned Friend go into every detail so that we can understand?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not have the opportunity to embark upon sufficient detail to fill my hon. Friend's mind as much as he would like to have it filled. I shall be

  871
  coming to each of the issues in due course, in the light of what took place at the Foreign Affairs Council last week and at the Agriculture Council meeting last weekend.
  I begin with budgetary discipline, because nothing better illustrates the extent of the progress that has been made than the way in which the question of budgetary discipline is now likely to be treated within the Community.
  We have not been alone on this issue. Several others, in particular the Dutch and the Germans, have long shared our anxiety on this score. Before the Athens European Council, the French added their powerful support to the view that budgetary discipline was an essential part of the Stuttgart package.
  The Brussels European Council confirmed two vital points. First, it is accepted that the rigorous rules that govern budgetary policy in member states should apply also to the Community budget. Secondly, the important point has been accepted that revenue should govern expenditure—and not the other way round. Not all the details have yet been translated into the rules and practices that will be necessary, but two important principles are no longer in dispute.
  First, at the beginning of each year's budgetary procedure, the maximum level of overall expenditure for the following financial year will be fixed. Secondly—this is an important feature for many hon. Members—the rate for the growth of agricultural expenditure should be held below the rate of growth of Community revenue.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: If I am to satisfy the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for detail, I must make my speech without interruption.
  In the weeks ahead, it will be the task of the Council of Ministers to translate those principles into measures that will guarantee their effective application, so that budgetary discipline becomes a full part of the Community's budgetary procedures.
  The rules that follow from those principles must ensure that any possible increase in own resources does not once again lead to an uncontrolled growth in agricultural spending because of lax, undisciplined budgetary procedures.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Would the Foreign Secretary share with the House his view on whether this week's agricultural settlement represents an example of that budgetary discipline? If so, will he explain to the House how that settlement results in another £500 million of expenditure on agriculture over and above the estimate provided for by the Commission and budgeted for by the Council of Ministers, and where that money will come from?
  Mr. Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting, because that makes the score one each on both sides of the House. I was just going to come, to the excitement of the hon. Gentleman, to the very question which he has raised. It was dealt with, of course, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he spoke to the House yesterday on the results of the Agriculture Council.
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor any other hon. Member had any doubt about the difficulty of those
  872
  conclusions. But nor should anyone doubt that the outcome was a major step towards reform of the CAP. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is frequently disposed to make this point — indeed, it is a point frequently made from the Opposition Front Bench; how, they say, can this be claimed to be a sufficiently effective conclusion of the agriculture debate when it still costs too much money? Yet, at the same time, they reserve the right to complain of the consequences for the agricultural community. They really have got to make up their minds.
  Mr. Cook rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to explain his policy on these matters in his own speech.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will give way in a moment, when I have taken this argument a little further.
  I have said that this represents a major step towards reform and I have mentioned that the removal of open-ended guarantees on products in surplus is a major step. The agreement on a price freeze or price reductions for most commodities is a considerable achievement.
  Implementing those decisions is not going to be easy for any member state. This has been made very clear by the chorus of complaint that has arisen not just within our own farming community but among farmers throughout the EC. But I suggest that if one takes into account the relative importance of agriculture in our country, the historic levels of production and other economic circumstances, the pain has not been too unfairly distributed.
  Mr. Taylor: If the calculations prove to be wrong on the agricultural percentage increase, through no fault of the Government or of any member of the EEC, what, under the existing procedures, is to stop either the Council of Finance Ministers or the Council of Agriculture Ministers deciding by a majority to impose a supplementary expenditure, which would of course push us through the ceiling? Does the Secretary of State agree that we would need either to change the treaty or to introduce regulations to stop a majority decision of the Council breaking through the percentage increase?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the features of the provisions under discussion and on the way to agreement in the European Council is a stipulation that not only shall the sum be paid every year be fixed, but, if there is for any reason any kind of overrun, that has to be collected or clawed back in following years. It has to be handled on the basis of a three-year moving average, because it may fall either short of or above the initial figure, for one reason or another.
  Mr. Taylor rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. I cannot give way too often.
  Mr. Taylor: Just very briefly.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry. I sympathise, as everyone must, with the dairy farmers who are worded about the effects of the milk super-levy. But very few of them, I hope and believe, can possibly contest the fact that the Community cannot go on producing 20 per cent. more milk than it can consume. Indeed, they have recognised that fact for some time.

  873
  Again, hon. Gentlemen are dissatisfied with the manifest hardships that are going to follow from this step and the direction of reform. If they wish the step to be more dramatic, more sustained, more swift, more urgent, they must stand up and be counted and say that the difficulties facing the farming community are not enough to satisfy them; that they wish to see far greater difficulties introduced at far greater speed. They cannot go on having it both ways.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture told the House yesterday, bringing milk production down from last year's level of 105 million tonnes to 99·5 million tonnes this year is expected to save the Community £1,000 million a year. Yet this still leaves 10 million tonnes of surplus production which the common agricultural policy will have to finance. So, of course, the process has to go on, but there must be some recognition of the significance of having taken this decisive step in the right direction.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot go on giving way.
  I know that some people argue—as the Opposition seek to do—that we should have gone further in cutting milk output, but others say that the cut represents an intolerable burden for our farmers. A balance had to be struck, and that is what my right hon. Friend was striving to achieve. While doing that, he obtained agreement on many features of importance to our farmers. For example, a one-year transitional arrangement will ease the adjustment to the new quotas; the intensive levy originally proposed has been turned down, as has the notion—which I can understand appeals to some people, but which is much more helpful to countries other than our own—of exclusions for small producers. There is scope in what has been agreed for special treatment of difficult cases —for example, where substantial investments have been made recently or production has been distorted by disease.
  In other sectors, much has been achieved that is of importance to British farmers and consumers alike. The butter subsidy has been kept in place. The beef variable premium scheme has been continued, albeit at a slightly reduced rate. Arrangements on sheepmeat which are of particular advantage to our hill farmers have been established, and we have successfully resisted—this, I believe, is important—the Commission's proposed tax on oils and fats.
  Much has been said — this point has been raised already — about the excess cost of the agricultural package. Of course, some parts of the agreements will be expensive and further progress in the same direction is necessary.
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is particularly true of the agreement to dismantle monetary compensatory amounts. Other measures which I have already described will make substantial savings. There is a long way to go before agricultural spending is brought fully under control, but I make the point — this has been recognised — that a significant and courageous start has been made.
  Mr. Budgen: On that point, is it enough? My right hon. and learned Friend was saying at one stage that it was
  874
  necessary to have a fundamental reform of the CAP before we were prepared in this country to authorise an increase in own resources. There was also another condition in relation to the budget. But, under the heading of the CAP, is the deal as it stands enough to constitute a fundamental reform?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend should be invited to take note of this point. The deal reached in the Agriculture Council on Friday and Saturday is a formidable step in the right direction——
  Mr. Budgen: But is it enough?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: —and it is acknowledged to be a formidable step in the right direction.
  Mr. Budgen: Is it enough?
  Mr. Howe: I heard my hon. Friend's question the first time he put it; he need not go on putting it time and time again. He asks whether it is enough. Of course in itself it is not enough, but this progress under this deal has been made even before the regulations that are going to become operative have started to operate. For that reason it represents, as I say, a significant and courageous start.
  I must say that here again there is a curious lack of precision about the policies of the Labour party. [Laughter.] I can imagine laughter being prompted by the accuracy of that observation. How do hon. Gentlemen reconcile their call for radical reform with the criticism which they reserve the right to make that the reforms achieved are too vast? How can they say, as they do, that the agreement costs too much, while adding that it should be put into place more slowly? They really must tell the House, and above all they must tell the farmers, exactly how they would cut agricultural costs. [Interruption.] Of course one has to have a balance between farmers and consumers. The Labour party seeks to go on pretending that one can get everything always. What it must consider —this must be of concern even to the Labour party—is how much British agriculture would have to contract if its policies were ever implemented.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting up the score to 3:2. He has asked for a precise statement from the Opposition, and I shall give him one. In the view of the Opposition Front Bench, the control of agriculture expenditure which he has outlined does not constitute a case for increasing own resources. If the Community, when bumping against the ceiling of expenditure, can still find another £500 million to spend on agriculture, there is no reason to imagine that the formula which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined will work after he has increased the resources that are available. Does the first step of the deal which he has outlined add up to a case for increasing own resources?
  Mr. Budgen: That is a perfectly fair question.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The step which I have been outlining, which has been achieved in agriculture, is one component that must be judged before we consider the issue of own resources. The Opposition must make up their mind which way they want to play this issue, and it seems that they cannot do it. The nearest that the Labour party has come to explaining its policy is to be found in a rather engaging statement of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on 22 March. During a 20-minute speech on this subject, he said:

  875
  "If I had more time, I would go into the ways in which we could reform the policy."—[Official Report, 22 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1280.]
  The failure of the Opposition to make specific and constructive criticisms and proposals is a measure of the gap between their general denunciation and anything that is practically significant.
  The most difficult issue in the negotiations is the fairness of the Community budget. The present own resources system was set up in 1970 for a Community of six. It has become increasingly clear that it does not operate fairly in a Community of ten. This is being recognised more and more by our partners in the Community. They realise that the Community cannot live from hand to mouth, from year to year—all the more so as they are arguing that the Community now needs new own resources. So this is precisely the moment to ensure that in future the Community is financed on a fair basis.
  In that respect, we have made a good deal of headway since Stuttgart. The arrangements under discussion at the previous European Council and in the past week cover all the key points. If they are adopted in their present form, they will ensure that any member state which carries an excessive budgetary burden in terms of its relative prosperity will have its contribution to the budget corrected and brought into line. They will ensure that the correction will no longer be applied through a system of refunds based on notional payments on the spending side but through a reduction in the VAT contribution in the following year. They will ensure that the duration of the correcting mechanism will be linked to any decision on new own resources. In other words, contributions will be related to ability to pay and there will be no more ad hoc arrangements from year to year. This is plainly a much more sensible way in which to finance the Community.
  The issue which still separates us in the negotiations is the figure on which the system should be based. The gap between what we have been offered and what we can accept may seem small, but there are two points to be noted. The first point is that every step that we take to meet the other nine has to be paid for exclusively by the United Kingdom, whereas every step the others take to meet us is shared among nine.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: What a specious argument.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot begin to understand how the hon. Gentleman sees fit to make that comment. If the burden that has to be borne is shouldered by one country, it is much heavier than if it is shared among nine others. If the burden is shared, it is a much smaller one for individual member states to accept. The second essential issue——
  Mr. Bell rose——
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, I must get on. The second essential issue is that the base figure, the figure which has to be determined, will govern what will happen in the years ahead. The system will be dynamic and will thus determine the sharing of the Community budget in future. That is why we must get the base figure right from the outset. What counts is the cumulative effect over a long period.
  Some have accused us of not being sufficiently flexible, and it is not surprising that we have been accused by others
  876
  of just the opposite. The truth is that our aims have remained constant and firm but that we have adapted our tactics as the situation has developed.
  It is easier for those member states which benefit from the present arrangements to combine to resist change. We have not argued for a zero contribution, for we expect to remain net contributors to the Community budget, even under a new system. We want to ensure that that net contribution does not increase unreasonably. The question for us is not so much the size of our rebate in the opening year, though that is important, as the way in which the system will develop over a number of years.
  The Prime Minister said at Stuttgart that we would consider an increase in own resources provided that we achieved control of agricultural and other Community spending, and provided that we achieved a fair share of the financial burdens. Those two conditions remain absolute. In the absence of agreement on those conditions, there is no question of an increase in own resources.
  Our partners argue that, because we are now up against the 1 per cent. ceiling and because it is impossible to negotiate immediate real cuts in agricultural costs, an increase in own resources will be necessary to allow the continuation of existing non-agricultural policies, the adoption of important new policies, and enlargement.
  The Commission proposed that to avoid the issue arising again in the near future there should be an increase of the VAT ceiling to 2 per cent. Some member states supported that proposal, while others argued that an increase to 1·6 per cent. was desirable. If there is to be an increase as part of a package, we take the view that it should be restricted to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 and that it should be subject to ratification by national Parliaments. If there is to be a proposal of a further increase of 1·6 per cent., that, too, could take place only with the unanimous agreement of member states. That, too, would have to be subject to ratification by national Parliaments. That view was accepted eventually at Brussels by every other member state.
  Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend mean that there would be two separate ratifications, two separate measures, two separate debates and two separate discussions?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Precisely. That is the point that I was emphasising, which was eventually accepted at Brussels by every other member state. So we accepted that there was a case for a limited increase in the VAT ceiling, but we made it clear that that depended on long-term effective control of Community spending and on the establishment of a fair and lasting budget system. I cannot emphasise too strongly that a necessary consequence of such a system—that is, a fair and lasting budget system —is a significant reduction in the effective burden on the United Kingdom.
  I hope that the House will allow me to anticipate one more argument that no doubt will be advanced. I have made it perfectly clear that the Community's failure to agree to pay our 1983 refunds now is unjustified and misconceived. Whether or not they are paid in the next few weeks, there is no question but that the Community is committed to making the payments, and we shall insist that it does so. Nevertheless, we have taken the view that we should take no action which might damage the prospects of decisive progress in the present negotiations.

  877
  I must make it clear to the House, as I have done to our partners in the Community, that that commitment must be honoured. We shall not agree to any increase in own resources which does not have as its counterpart a satisfactory budgetary settlement. That must, of course, include the 1983 refunds.
  I have left until the end the new policies section of the negotiations because the new policies represent, certainly for us, the future of the Community and the way in which we want to see it emerging when we have solved the outstanding issues in the Stuttgart package.
  The European Council was successful in reaching a large measure of agreement on policies and on developing existing policies. These include, for example, the development of Europe's scientific and technological potential, which is one of the keys to the future prosperity of the Community. We shall adopt a framework programme by the end of June for telecommunications and biotechnology and there will be an increased programme for Community research and development.
  Secondly, we wish to free the internal market so that European companies may derive more benefit from the common market within the Community. We want to introduce measures to reduce frontier controls to simplify trade procedures, to establish common standards and to open up public sector contracting. Thirdly, we are intent on liberalising trade in services, especially by the removal of restrictions on lorry traffic, and the opening up of the insurance market. As London emerges increasingly as the financial centre of Europe, that will be of particular significance to the United Kingdom.
  The specialist Councils will be required to get on with these priority tasks as rapidly as possible. We shall be pressing for practical action and we shall do our utmost to keep the momentum going. It has been the task of Conservative Governments since 1979 to repair the damage done to the Community and to Britain's role within it by the half-hearted and obstructive activities of the previous Labour Government.
  The Opposition may not like to be reminded, but when they were last in office they had the opportunity to show what they could do. They failed abysmally. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), a member of that Administration, told the House the truth on 22 March, when he said:
  "The last Labour Government failed to secure radical reform of the CAP. Invariably, we allowed ourselves to be bought off'.—[Official Report, 22 March; Vol 56, c. 1286.]
  He was quite right.
  The last Labour Government in this context failed to achieve reform of anything, radical or otherwise. The last Labour Government left this country instead with an agricultural policy that was running out of control, and a rapidly rising budgetary burden. This Government have had to grapple with the consequences of that failure, and we have been doing so with increasing success ever since.
  The resolute and consistent approach of this Government to Community issues has produced results—and will go on achieving results. We have achieved a common fisheries policy which provides a good deal for British fishermen. We have made a courageous start on reforming the common agricultural policy. We have secured budget rebates worth £2,500 million over four years. We are now moving
  878
  towards a long-term agreement for a fairer budget. The Labour party negotiated a financial mechanism which secured not a single penny for Britain.
  Slowly but surely, we are seeing the Community put its house in order and equip itself to deal with the challenges of the modern world—above all, perhaps, the challenge of securing the European recovery which will be the best long-term basis for fuller employment for our citizens.
  In all of this, Britain under this Government has been giving a lead. We have been a catalyst for change within the Community. Change is often uncomfortable, but it is necessary. The prizes to be won for Europe are great. A successful European Community is a major British national interest. That is why the Government will persevere with their efforts to set the Community on a basis which will enable all its members to contribute fully and fairly to its success.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition welcome this debate and I personally welcome the opportunity to lead for the Opposition. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary was overwhelmed when 481 hon. Members went into the Lobby to decide on the closure of the previous debate so that they could hear us. Not all of them have been able to turn up, however.
  We regret that there is no opportunity tonight for the House to express its wishes on two key issues—first, on withholding our contributions to an amount equal to the rebate due and, secondly, on whether Britain should agree to increase own resources. We look forward to the eventual debate and vote on that issue.
  This debate is about the current negotiations within the European Community. The negotiations stretch over the whole period of this Government. We shall show that, in relation to the targets and objectives that the Government set for themselves, their record is one of repeated failure.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Nonsense.
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall prove that it is not nonsense. No rebate has yet been paid. The common agricultural policy is still uncontrolled. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will trace the tactical withdrawal —or, more precisely, the retreat—on the question of increasing own resources. The Government's attitude has changed from, "We might consider that after we achieve our demands" to the current position of an agreement being made before we have achieved what we asked for.
  The record is a catalogue of failure dressed up as successes or triumphs by carefully controlled, clever media manipulation. In reality the Prime Minister is like the grand old Duke of York, who has led her men up to the top of the hill—summit after summit—to conquer CAP expenditure, to achieve lasting solutions to the budget imbalance, and most recently to secure that elusive 1983 rebate. Each time she has marched them down again.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has chosen to attack my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Has he read the latest issue of the New Statesman, in particular an article by Mr. John Palmer, a senior member of the Socialist Society, who is in control of the European Socialist strategy? He says:

  879
  "It is a useful rule of thumb that when the Labour Party reaches for the Union Jack to attack Tory Prime Ministers, it is to cover up its own ideological nakedness. Europe, and all matters EEC, have long been a major blind spot for the British Left, but the EEC budget crisis has underlined the bankruptcy of official Labour policy towards Europe."
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that intervention. As he knows, we do not all share the blind spot that he described. I am reliably informed that, like the Minister, Mr.- Palmer is not a member of the Labour party, so I cannot take any responsibility for his remarks. The New Statesman is not an official Labour party paper.
  I remind the Foreign Secretary of the first alleged triumph of the Prime Minister. It was not at Stuttgart, but at Brussels in 1980 when we heard about the long-term solution. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) reported to the House, and there was no doubt in his mind four years ago, about the unrivalled opportunity for a solution to the Community's problems.
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "With the review commissioned for 1981 and the proximity of the I per cent. VAT ceiling, we have an unrivalled opportunity to bring about sensible adjustments to the operation of the CAP and to put the Community's finances on a sounder basis than ever before. This Government came to office determined to make a success of our membership of the Community. The first task was to deal with the inequitable budget contribution. That we have now done."—[Official Report, 2 June 1980; Vol. 985, c. 1046.]
  The Government claimed in 1980 that they had solved the problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said at the time, that was certainly not so.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Gentleman set that argument in the context of the series of triumphs that he will no doubt claim for the last Labour Administration over the way in which they set about tackling our problems in the Community? That juxtaposition would be useful to the House.
  Mr. Foulkes: Some hon. Members who are present were connected with the last Labour Administration and perhaps they might contribute to the debate.
  We read in June 1980 that the problem was solved, and the euphoria and ecstasy in the House was unbelievable. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who is not known as a supporter of the present Government and their Prime Minister, said:
  "I also express appreciation of the fact that the question of the budget has now been settled".—[Official Report, 2 June 1980, Vol. 985, c. 1050.]
  Even more ecstasy was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), who asked of the Lord Privy Seal:
  "Is he aware that this agreement will be seen as yet another demonstration of the Prime Minister's extraordinary ability to make possible the seemingly impossible?"—[Official Report, 2 June 1980; Vol. 985, c. 1051.]
  That did not do him much good.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider leaving that line of argument? Does he agree that it has become a convention of the House that every Minister coming back from the EEC always claims a great triumph? If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, can he cite any instance throughout the period of our negotiations for membership, and during our membership of the Community, when any
  880
  Minister of any Government came back and said that the meeting had been disastrous and that the whole thing was a failure?
  Mr. Foulkes: I agree that that is not normally the inclination of any returning Minister, but from time to time they admit to having problems, as hon. Members on both sides know. Nevertheless, I will accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures and move on to the more recent history of negotiations since the last general election.
  As the Foreign Secretary said, the key meeting was at Stuttgart on 23 June 1983. To judge from accounts of previous summits, any participant who attended all of them must have had a feeling of déOà vu at Stuttgart as it involved the same issues, the same agreements, the same unrivalled opportunities and the same inexorable pressures as three years before. The main questions discussed were exactly the same. The Prime Minister came back and told the House that the objectives set were clear directions, a tight timetable and effective procedures and said that the conclusions reached at Stuttgart met those objectives. She said that urgent procedures would be set in train, that there would be special meetings in the run-up to the Athens summit and that special responsibility for dealing with those meetings would be placed on the Foreign Secretary, the "master of detail". He would be in charge, and at Athens in December 1983 everything would be all right. Greater budgetary discipline, effective control of agriculture and other expenditure and equitable sharing of the burdens would be achieved.
  Mr. Marlow: There are serious issues at stake. Will the hon. Gentleman stop trying to score party political points and address himself to them?
  Mr. Foulkes: They are indeed serious issues. I shall come to the previous pronouncements of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) in a moment.
  My understanding was that the British rebate was agreed and accepted at the Stuttgart summit, albeit falling short of the Government's previous target. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said earlier, it also fell short of the unanimous resolution of the House of 22 November 1979. Nevertheless, the British rebate was agreed at that meeting of Heads of Government and no conditions were placed upon it. It did not depend on any agreement on any other subject. The hon. Member for Northampton, North—an unbiased observer, as it were — helped in this context when he asked the Prime Minister the following question:
  "Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the excellent rebate that she negotiated on behalf of the United Kingdom will be available whether or not there is an agreement over the long-term finances of the Community later this year?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "The arrangement that we reached on this year's refund is separate from the long-term arrangement."—[Official Report, 23 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 149.]
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is becoming an anthology.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady does not like too many quotations from the Prime Minister because they reveal too many twists and turns in the past few years, but she is going to hear them.
  The Athens summit was billed as the final solution. There seem to have been a great many finals in this. The Times described it as the longest summit ever and as a

  881
  "total failure bringing the EEC to the brink of financial and political collapse."
  The Prime Minister's next statement to the House was another example of back-tracking. She said that all the matters should be considered as a whole, casting aside the assurance given to the hon. Member for Northampton, North that the rebate would be taken separately. The Prime Minister blamed the failure of the Athens summit on everyone else but said that things would be better at Brussels — it moves around from capital to capital. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked what was likely to change between Athens and Brussels, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, "The weather"—and that was all that did change.
  Between Athens and Brussels another opportunity was lost. The French President appointed a Minister for Europe, Mr. Dumas, who went from capital to capital ensuring that the French view was co-ordinated for the next meeting. The British Foreign Secretary, however, seemed transfixed. No action was taken and the United Kingdom became even more isolated than it had been previously. Potential allies who could have been brought together were alienated and no urgency was apparent.
  At home, however, the Prime Minister made brave noises and ringing declarations for United Kingdom consumption, especially in the patriotic tabloids, in which she was constantly quoted as saying, "It's our money!" The distinguished political correspondent of The Times, Mr. Anthony Bevins, reported on 21 October 1983 that a Bill to block EEC cash was ready if the talks broke down. I suspect that that piece of tough talk was a leak from someone other than Sarah Tisdall and that no inquiries or prosecutions followed. The report stated:
  "The Government is understood to have drafted a contingency Bill and a supporting White Paper which could be used to block British contributions to the European Community budget in the event of a breakdown of talks on the future of Community development."
  It said that
  "civil servants were instructed to draw up contingency plans before the Stuttgart summit, making the necessary amemdments to the European Communities Act that would enable Britain to take unilateral cash action."
  It continued:
  "One Whitehall source confirmed last night that the Government did have contingency plans."
  Will the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State confirm that? Where is the Bill? Where is the White Paper? It would be interesting to know. The Government talk tough but act weak.
  More recent history shows even more abject failure by the Government.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: When the hon. Gentleman was younger and wiser, he was a great believer in Britain playing an active part in the Community. We therefore listen with rather more interest to the hon. Gentleman than to some of his hon. Friends to hear how he thinks that further progress can be made. Is there any chance of anything constructive from him today?
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman clearly finds it difficult to accept that the Conservative Government have failed for the past four years. The Brussels summit was a total collapse although, yet again, before the meeting took place the Foreign Secretary predicted success. If that
  882
  prediction is anything to go by, I doubt whether he was betting on Hallo Dandy in the Grand National. The Prime Minister told the House:
  "The Government are considering what action we should now take to safeguard our position."
  We would like to know what action will be taken to safeguard our position. There was a policy shift. The Prime Minister was so concerned about the total collapse at Brussels that the Cabinet were to be consulted about what to do. But there were already hints from the Prime Minister of a climb-down. She said that the rebate was
  "not a legal necessity"
  but habit and custom. The right hon. Lady's natural instincts then prevailed, and she said that the action of the Community was reprehensible and almost intolerable.
  Mr. Budgen: Many hon. Members will accept that the Government have wriggled all over the place in the negotiations. Will the hon. Gentleman please set out the Labour party's position on the deal and say whether the Labour party believes that the deal justifies the increase in own resources?
  Mr. Foulkes: That is a valid question, and I shall deal with it.
  In her statement on the Brussels summit, the Prime Minister cited precedents for withholding. She said:
  "in 1979, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom refused to pay full VAT contributions… In 1981 the French, Germans and Belgians… refused to pay… in respect of the 1980 supplementary budget". — [Official Report, 21 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1049–1053.]
  The House understands that the Prime Minister's instinct must be to withhold — to take some decisive action. Clearly she has been counselled and cautioned about the legality of that step, but my understanding is that the United Kingdom would be acting illegally only if the European court ruled as such, and we would still have several months before that might happen in which to decide. That would be decisive action by the Government and the Foreign Secretary. So far, we do not know what decisive action is being suggested.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The historical rigmarole that the hon. Gentleman is offering to the House is simply an account of a long and difficult negotiation made more difficult by the irresponsible and unconstructive attitude of the Opposition.
  Mr. Foulkes: Not at all. We are talking about what the Government have done and what success, if any, they have achieved. The negotiations have been a failure for the Government on every count. We are debating the Government's negotiations. After the next election, when we are back in power, things will be different.
  After the abject failure of Brussels, which put the Government and the Cabinet into grave difficulty, the day was saved by a most unlikely saviour — President Mitterrand—and the Foreign Secretary had yet another opportunity to save the honour of the country and of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Why does the hon. Gentleman describe his Socialist colleague the President of France as an unlikely saviour?
  Mr. Foulkes: He is certainly an unlikely saviour of the Conservative Government in their difficulties. There was a peculiar contradition in the Prime Minister's statement.

  883
  France and Germany vetoed our deal, but the President of France was said to have been very helpful about our rebate. That is difficult to understand.
  At the eleventh hour and 59th minute the Prime Minister was still making reassuring noises to the Leader of the Opposition. On 22 March, she was saying that our refund was not due until 31 March, as if that was something to be pleased about. There were still nine days left in which the Community might undergo a last-minute conversion and pay the money.
  I come to the final chapter in the sorry saga that has unfolded in the past fortnight. Predictably, the Foreign Affairs Council—at which the Foreign Secretary had a last chance to save the field — ended in failure. Yesterday we heard that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has agreed to a deal that will cost us more, not less. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston estimated the figure at about £500 million. He was gently contradicted by some Conservative Members. They may have been right to contradict him, because the figure may be closer to £800 million or £1,000 million. That cannot be called keeping the CAP under control.
  There is still a surplus of 10 million tonnes of milk agreed for the next five years. It is an institutionalised part of the operation of the Community. However, the consumer is no better off. Milk prices do not fall, although that would be a sensible way to deal with the surplus, and beef prices will rise. Yesterday the Minister was challenged about how this situation measured up to the fundamental reform required as a prerequisite of the increase in own resources. He could only say that it was a vital first step. If it is, it must be a step in a very long staircase. To our mind, this does not satisfy the prerequisite for an increase in own resources.
  Mr. Michael Lord: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how beef prices will rise?
  Mr. Foulkes: The farmers themselves have predicted that beef prices could rise by between 18p and 25p in the pound. That is the prediction that I have read in the papers, and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
  Already, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seems to have swallowed up the projected VAT increase to 1·4 per cent., before it has even been agreed. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has give a clear outline of the Labour party's alternative agriculture policy and he will be glad to do so again at any time, for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) or anyone else.
  In spite of all the statements from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, all the debates and all the Question Times, questions still remain unanswered. Britain's rebate is now overdue. We have passed 31 March without any payments being made. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to answer my questions. What advice was the Cabinet given about the legality of withholding the money due to us? The House should be told what the advice was. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said last week, according to justice and the rules of the Community the refund should have been paid to us by 31 March. If agreements reached at summits do not mean anything, why do we bother to have them?
  What are the Government doing to safeguard Britain's position? We have been told that they are worried, but what are they doing? That is the least of the promises that
  884
  they have made to us. Where is the rumoured Bill on withholding, and the White Paper? When will the House have an opportunity to express its views on the matter?
  The Foreign Secretary has spoken about own resources. Will he explain why, although his belief was that the increase to 1·6 per cent. would have to be approved by the Parliaments of the member states, Mr. Mitterrand said at a press conference on 21 March:
  "The maximum rate of VAT mobility was set at 1·4 per cent. as from 1 January 1986 concomitant with the Community's enlargement, and would rise to 1·6 per cent. after two years, on a unanimous vote of the Council of Ministers."
  There is no suggestion there that the national Parliaments will have to approve the change. I hope that the Foreign Secretary can explain why his understanding differs from that of Mr. Mitterrand.
  Will the Foreign Secretary also explain a fundamental contradiction in the Government's tradition? The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others have said that the necessary precondition of increasing own resources is real and effective control of the CAP. However, the Foreign Secretary must agree that if we achieve such real and effective control, an increase in own resources will not be necessary. Is that not the case? The hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said last week that our ability to prevent an increase in own resources is our trump card. It would seem more truly to be our only card in this game. From what we heard previously—I am not reassured by what we heard earlier today — it would seem that the Government are in danger of discarding that trump card before we have achieved the objectives which they set.
  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet again on 9 April —yet another last chance for the Foreign Secretary to achieve some success. What can we expect then? What will be done between now and then to get support from our partners and to end our isolation in the Community? Will the stumbling from meeting to meeting and from crisis to crisis continue, or will the Government achieve their objectives?
  The Government have failed, first, because they have no overall co-ordinated strategy for the Community, unlike the French, who have appointed a Minister for Europe to co-ordinate their strategy. Secondly, they have failed because they made no attempt to persuade the European Parliament at crucial times about the necessity of our rebate or, indeed, to win allies among our partners. Our abrasive style of negotiating, especially that of the Prime Minister, has lost us allies instead of winning them. Now we have even conceded the Irish milk demand for one year with bad grace and bad diplomacy, without getting their support in return, and we have agreed a deal which the Prime Minister said would be devastating to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
  The objectives were set out by the Government in 1979. They have failed to control agricultural spending. They have failed to get long-term changes in the budget and they have even failed to obtain the one-year rebate that was agreed at the Stuttgart summit. The farmers are unhappy; the consumers will see prices increasing; the other nine member states have been alienated by the Government; and we have obtained none of what the Government set out to achieve. Meanwhile, the Community has failed to tackle the major problems of 14 million people unemployed, of increasing poverty in the Community and of starvation in the Third world. In voting for the

  885
  Adjournment tonight, we shall register our view that the Government's policy in the community represents total and abject failure.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I begin by setting this matter in context in two ways. First, I remind the House that the size of the Community budget is about £15 billion, which is roughly equivalent to either our defence or health budgets. Therefore, it is as important to review and control the Community budget as it would be to review and control one of our domestic budgets. The second context is the attitude of our continental colleagues to our approach to negotiations with them. Our approach is seen differently on the continent from how it is in Britain. That is understandable, but it is worth remembering and repeating.
  Our continental colleagues say, "You negotiated your entry to the Community under one Government in the early 1970s, you pronounced yourselves satisfied with it and you came in. Your Government then changed complexion in the mid-1970s, renegotiated the terms and even went so far as to have a referendum on the matter. They obtained the support of the overwhelming majority of the British people for membership of the Community and pronounced themselves satisfied. We were astonished when, in the late 1970s, when your Government changed hands again, you were still unhappy with your terms of membership and came back to us wanting further negotiations."
  It is little wonder that we have problems in persuading our Community colleagues that we are in genuine difficulty on this matter. They are fully entitled to say, "What is wrong with you British? Do you not understand what the Community is about? Do you not understand what negotiations are about? How many times must you come back to us under different Governments and pronounce yourselves in turn satisfied and dissatisfied?" It is important to remember that that is the context in which we have had to approach the negotiations yet again and have had to try to persuade our continental partners of the justice of our case.
  Having said that, the Government's position has been made clear, and it is one on which we can all stand four square. It is that finance should determine expenditure, not vice versa. That commends itself to me as a sound Conservative principle and a sound commonsense principle.
  On 28 March my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that the Government would entertain a proposal for an increase in the Community's resources
  "only if there is effective control of Community spending and a fair sharing of the budgetary burden."—[Official Report, 28 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 295.]
  Every hon. Member would agree with that proposition. However, my problem is this: how far have we moved towards that position and how far are we persuaded that we have arrived there sufficiently to proceed to the next vital step in the development of the Community? How far have we gone towards the proposition that finance will determine expenditure, and how effective are our Finance Ministers in curbing the enthusiasm of their agricultural colleagues?
  886
  In considering this matter we should examine agriculture, which represents about two thirds of the Community's budget and which is still the most important aspect of the Community's activities that must be controlled. Therefore, we must consider the extent to which we are moving towards or have achieved effective control of agricultural spending. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
  "The trend makes it doubtful whether, in 1984… agricultural expenditure can be easily met within the budgetary provision."
  In 1984 agriculture is budgeted at about 16·5 billion ecus. My information, which I regard as extremely reliable, is that that sum is almost bound to be exceeded by a minimum of 2 billion ecus. That will occur for several reasons: first, because of the cost of the recent mca changes; secondly, because of the carry-over of the 1983 deferred expenditure; thirdly, because of the price increases that have been conceded on some products; and, fourthly, because of likely changes in world markets, especially in cereal harvests.
  Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend drew an analogy between the EC budget and Britain's health budget. Does he accept that the analogy goes further and that both budgets are open-ended because they are both entitlement-led budgets? Does he agree that we must limit that open-endedness and that this is what has been achieved in the dairy settlement?
  Mr. Forth: I am persuaded in one respect by my hon. Friend's point, and that is that we all agree about the objectives. However, I remain to be convinced that what was brought back to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister yesterday was a significant step towards ending the open-ended arrangement. There are two elements in the problem of the agriculture policy: one is the volume and the other is the price level. Although we have gone some way towards tackling prices, I am not convinced that we have dealt with the volume.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister also said yesterday:
  "The Community will need to take the necessary steps to limit expenditure."— [Official Report, 2 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 661.]
  We have not yet heard from anyone what that would involve. If we must face a minimum increase of 2 billion ecus in the Community's agricultural expenditure in 1984, where will that money come from?
  It can come only from a very limited number of measures, and we have yet to hear which are to be invoked. One would be a reduction in another head of Community expenditure, perhaps the regional fund or the social fund. Both of these are beloved by many hon. Members, and the United Kingdom benefits considerably from both. None of us would like to see either of them cut. What shall we have then—a supplementary budget, or a further passing round of the hat? If we have either of these measures, how can that be accepted in the context of a claim for a need for a reduction in or limitation on agricultural spending? How far can we be persuaded that we have made any significant progress along the path of a reduction in or control of agricultural spending if in the very year that we have embarked on this project we find that already we are being invited to cover further expenditure on agriculture? This is the problem that I have with these negotiations and proposals.

  887
  We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that the agricultural package is not in itself enough to meet the criteria laid down by the Government for an increase in own resources. I found that statement at least reassuring—[Interruption]. He said that. We shall see it in Hansard tomorrow. I made a note of it. I heard him say that the agricultural package was not in itself sufficient justification for the Government to proceed to agree to a further increase in own resources. That is what I heard him say. Hon. Members will be able to check the record tomorrow.
  Mr. Robin Cook: May I help the hon. Gentleman? As I understood it, the Foreign Secretary referred to the budget imbalance. I share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension if that is what the Foreign Secretary meant, but if I understood him correctly he was saying that the agricultural settlement was not in itself sufficient because it was yet to be accompanied by action on the budget imbalance. There was no suggestion in what the Foreign Secretary said that he was not prepared to recommend the agricultural settlement as meeting the conditions on agricultural expenditure that he has attached to an increase in own resources.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The note that I have is that the Foreign Secretary would not agree to an increase in own resources unless he was satisfied on the budget and the refund payment was made.
  Mr. Forth: We all know that the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is always as reliable as Hansard, and I am prepared to accept what she says.
  I wish to move to the second point about the rationale behind an increase in Community own resources in itself. One thing that we have not heard too much of as yet is the argument for an increase in Community resources per se. We have heard the context in which it is said. Those of us who have experience of our continental friends know of their various enthusiasms for spending on various projects. We know that the Community has become a very effective mechanism for devising ever more methods of spending money, preferably other people's money, and often ours. What we have not yet heard is an argument in detail as to why the Community justifies having more resources of its own at this point in its development.
  If an institution is proving ineffective in dispensing and using resources in its current circumstances, how can it justify to any reasonable person a further increase in those resources? That is the nub of the argument. The argument has become obfuscated by the negotiations which have gone on whereby we have tried rightly to limit our input to the Community budget and in return have been prepared to concede the principle and ultimately, I suspect, the fact of an increase in Community resources without going through the vital stage of asking why the resources should be increased and what we would do with them if they were.
  Again, we were given a hint of this by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when he suggested some headings under which this could be justified. The most important of these need not necessarily incur any additional expenditure, because if we are to make the Community work better we certainly need free movement of goods within the Community, the dismantling of the non-tariff barriers to trade and all such
  888
  related matters. We need progress in the free movement of goods and services and so on. None of these need have any budgetary significance.
  Although the argument is still to be made, we may need a new level of expenditure on research and development which some would argue could be more effectively carried out by the Community than by individual nations. I should like to hear that argument articulated in much more detail.
  The final justification for the increase in own resources is enlargement. Again, that is a subject that has been woefully neglected as an argument in itself. It is often introduced as a kind of digression or sideline to other vital arguments. Various Ministers from the Foreign Office have stressed often what they regard as the great importance to the Western democracies of bringing Spain and Portugal into the Community. I find this argument singularly unconvincing. For example, if one considers the membership of NATO, it is not in any way conterminous with the membership of the Community. Some members of the Community are not in NATO. Spain has already agreed to support, if not to join, NATO without being a member of the Community. I do not think that the two should necessarily be tied together.
  More worrying is the fact that we are being told that to have the privilege of an enlarged Community we may have to provide more resources to the Community and through it to the new members. I invite my hon. Friends and the House to speculate on the result on the political balance and on policy-making within the Community of an enlargment of the membership to 12. What will happen when there is a possible alignment of the members of the south—Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France when it suits it—to reorientate the policies of the Community towards what are loosely known as the Mediterranean products, although Portugal is far from the Mediterranean? That is one of the policy issues that faces a potentially enlarged Community. We are rarely invited to think about it and the House has not been given sufficient time to consider it in the past.
  I am watching most carefully the progress of the negotiations on all these interrelated matters, but I do not as yet believe that we have reached a point where we have been given sufficient justification to go to the vital stage of giving the European Economic Community more resources. We must satisfy ourselves about our own position, about the agricultural policies and about enlargement and its implications. Until I hear very much more about these matters, I shall reserve my judgment.
  9 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Not the least valuable part of the valuable speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was the invitation to the House to look at these negotiations as they appear to the rest of the European Economic Community.
  It would be easy superficially for a person listening to the report of the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, after the European Council, and of the Foreign Secretary last week, after the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, to conclude that, apart from the rhetoric, this was really only another of those habitual paroxysms of the Community where a gap is left which is presently filled by one more heave, large or small, by one more compromise or by one more rearrangement of the figures.
  This time it was different, and was perceived to be different. Often, a fundamental difference—one which

  889
  forces itself on people's attention — presents itself as though it were a quarrel about details, about figures and relatively small amounts. The new feature—or, at any rate, the feature new in its intensity—which followed the events of the last two weeks was the much more realistic reaction of the other members of the European Community. They seemed at last to realise what had lain behind the train of events of which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire reminded the House and which, no doubt, is fresh in the minds of our EEC partners. They realised, for example, how strongly feeling in this country remains set against membership itself.
  I notice that the French Liberation wrote:
  "Madame Thatcher has every reason to stand firm on her cheque. She has behind her 55 per cent. of the British people ready to leave Europe at a day's notice, but also 20,000 miners on the eve of losing their jobs who would not be at all understanding if the so-called Iron Lady paid handouts to French and Italian farmers."
  They have also recognised that there is a fundamental difference of intention on the part of this country from at least some of the other members of the Community. In an important speech, the German Chancellor brought that out plainly when he said:
  "The question is, who is ready to follow us"—
  presumably Germany—
  "along the road to political union with the declared goal of a United States of Europe?"
  By implication, the suspicion had dawned on Herr Kohl's mind—I shall return to this shortly—that whoever else said aye to that, the British people did not. But perhaps most perceptive of all, as one would expect, was the French Foreign Minister, M. Cheysson, who told the European Assembly that
  "he was concerned that there was an incompatibility between the original six EEC countries and those who joined later with different interests and characters."
  That was well perceived. There is a radical incompatibility. There is the incompatibility of Britain's perception of itself in relation to the European continent; there is the incompatibility of the economies of a country such as ours and the much more profoundly agricultural countries of the European continent; above all, there is a constitutional and political incompatibility.
  I hold in my hand — I have treasured it — the document which was issued in 1975 to all citizens when they were invited to give their advice — it was only advice, it will be recalled — on the question of our continued membership of the EEC. On the page entitled "Will Parliament lose its power?" was a reference to the then recent Government White Paper in which, so it said, the
  "Prime Minister declares that, through membership of the Market, we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty."
  There followed the all-important sentence—the answer which, no doubt vainly, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) sought from the Foreign Secretary—about the legality of any action by this country to protect itself and its rights:
  "The British Parliament in Westminster"—
  it is said in what was not a partisan document; but the factual basis on which all citizens were invited to reach their conclusion—
  "retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1st 1973. Thus, our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament."
  890
  That, I suppose, every Englishman would take for granted. He would say, "That is a fair description. That is what it is all about. That is what we understand to be our political rights and liberties." But that is not what has hitherto been understood by the remainder of the members as the nature of our adherence to the Community.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: The right hon. Gentleman has made it plain, as he has on repeated occasions, that he would reject any compromise that would enable the Community to function effectively. He has also made it plain on repeated occasions that he rejects any compromise that would enable the Commonwealth to be any kind of effective force. Is he, therefore, saying now, and has he said on other occasions, that he welomes the total isolation of this country?
  Mr. Powell: I fear that I may, perhaps for the first time, disappoint the hon. Gentleman, not so much—it would be out of the line of this debate—by any remarks on the Commonwealth but by what I have to say about our relationship with the EEC.
  This is a formidable trinity of incompatibilities which lies behind the differences of approach that have been signalised and forced into recognition by the Prime Minister's determination. That is something that we have to face; and, unless we are to go round the dreary and self-destructive cycle many times yet, the rest of the Community will have to face it too. Yet, incompatability or not, we cannot contract out of Europe.
  We are attached to Europe by the fundamental necessity of a relationship of exchange that is much more than an exchange of trade — it is an exchange at all human levels between ourselves and the peoples of the adjacent continent. With that crucible of humanity that is Europe, with its political strivings, its cultural attainments and even its religious movements, this country is inextricably bound up. What happens politically on the continent of Europe is bound profoundly to affect this country. We cannot set aside those facts because we discover that the framework in which we have hitherto endeavoured to perceive and manage our relationship with the European nations is defective and incompatible with all that we hold most closely dear.
  This is an age of institutionalisation, or, to put it more elegantly, an age of institutions. We seem to need to create for every problem or perception a corresponding institution to fit it. Certainly, we need an institution to fit our true relationship with the nations of the European continent without any prejudice to what we intend for ourselves, what we mean for ourselves, and what we understand about ourselves.
  I believe that to be the truth lying behind what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly. A fortnight ago, she said:
  "I want to see a more effective Community, developing its full potential. That is the Community in which I believe."—[Official Report, 21 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1050.]
  Only a few days ago she said:
  "many of us had far greater ideals for the European Community than have yet been achieved. We shall continue to work for them but we believe that the financial and agricultural matters must be settled first."—[Official Report, 29 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 446.]
  I do not believe it was mere words for the sake of words when the Prime Minister said that. I do not think that—as I admit I was base enough to suspect when the Foreign Secretary opened his speech this evening—this was a sort of shield behind which she could advance unobserved

  891
  to the attainment of her immediate objectives. I think she was expressing the sense, which almost all of us have, that we must find a different—a better and more successful — institutionalisation of our relationship with the European nations than the framework of the original Six with which M. Cheysson observes that we are incompatible. We have to devise that. Along with the rest of the European Community, we are engaged this time upon a profoundly important venture, and it is essential that neither on this side of the Channel nor on the other should its magnitude be misunderstood. We are looking for a new relationship, a new conception which will work; one in which we can give without taking, in which we can contribute without meanness or grudging. That is the task which the nation wants this Government to perform. I believe this Government can perform it.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for his patience and stamina in the past few months. The same applies to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose sleepless nights are now over, I hope. Within the terms allowed, they have both negotiated skilfully. However, my criticism is that the European negotiations are not ordinary negotiations where there can be a free exchange of bargaining counters. Over the past few months we have had a unique opportunity to create a different Europe. That Europe cannot be created by negotiating along previously established lines. If we let that opportunity slip away, it may never return. We must not let it slip away by treating the whole exercise as simply another horse deal.
  Own resources are central to that difference. Speaking as a European, I oppose any increase in own resources. I resent any implication that, because I resist an increase in own resources, I am thereby anti-European. I supported Britain's entry to the Common Market. I voted in that referendum following the farcical renegotiations— and how they got it wrong—to stay in. I want a drawing together of European foreign and defence policies. I want a removal of barriers to trade and a genuine free exchange of services and goods. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary alluded to the new policies being worked out in Brussels. I hope that we can give them a fair wind. In short, I believe in a Europe that achieves its full potential for peace and prosperity.
  However, all that is being distorted and obscured by the present structure of the Common Market. It is no good saying, "Let us go for the political objectives and not argue about a few hundred million pounds." For a start, it is not a few hundred million pounds. We are committing ourselves now to a stream of contributions that will be difficult for any future Parliament ever to influence again. Secondly, and more important, a budgetary system that is fundamentally flawed—and flawed it certainly is—will for ever create bewilderment and resentment among the people of Europe. We can all understand and even support a system whereby the richer countries contribute to poorer countries; but that is not what we have or are being offered. The negotiations in Europe sanctify a system whereby Britain, a poorer country, pays an annual tribute to her richer neighbours. Great damage is being done to the European ideal by that permament and enduring imbalance.
  892
  We are also entitled to ask about the competence of the European institutions that control and administer the budget. The Common Market has run out of money because of agricultural overspending. Who is responsible for that spending? It is certainly not the farmers. All that they have done is to react to a favourable price regime in the most logical way—by increasing output. They have been encouraged to do so by a succession of Ministers and a collection of grants, many of them European, designed to increase European agricultural production and productivity. Of course, farmers and the National Farmers Union press for higher prices. That is their job. The surpluses are not their fault. They are evidence of a European failure, a refusal to face reality. It is a European failure of political nerve, an attitude of spending now and asking questions later.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that, for the first time and fundamentally, the French and German Governments have accepted that reality? That is what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was saying, as I understood it.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, the point I am making is that the spending dynamic in Europe is still there. France and Germany may have marginally changed tack, but the same European structure, the same coalition of interests that created the problem, remains unreformed.
  Mr. Jackson: Will my hon. Friend recognise that these problems are inherent in any system of managed agricultural markets? After all, the American dairy surplus is larger than the European surplus. So this has nothing to do with European institutional structures: it is an inherent problem.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is an inherent problem, given the present structure of European institutions. We have an unholy alliance between national interests bargaining for a slightly larger slice of the cake and European interests arguing for a larger cake in the first place. My point is that those same institutions remain intact and that we are being asked to give them a higher VAT contribution.
  It is indeed a much higher contribution, because an increase to 1·4 per cent., which, I gather, is the minimum being contemplated, would add about £3,500 million to the Community's own resources. That is an increase of about 25 per cent. I see very little justification for reinforcing failure in that way. I see a need to cap the CAP. I see a need to control spending rather than increase it. The whole principle and rationale of the 1 per cent. VAT contribution, which has existed for some time now , is that it is automatically buoyant. Not only does it rise in line with prices—that is to say, it is inflation-proofed—but it rises in line with increased output. It is, as it were, super-buoyant. An increased level of consumer expenditure feeds directly and automatically into higher VAT contributions. As we are moving out of a recession, and as consumer expenditure picks up, so VAT revenue should increase throughout the Community.
  It may be happening already. Last year we were told that the Common Market would run out of money by this spring. Doomsday has now been postponed. We are told that the Common Market may run out of money by the autumn. What is happening on the revenue side? May we

  893
  be told? I understand that the Commission has no estimate of the likely VAT yield in the coming year—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave that answer to a written question last month. All that the Commission would say is that it needs the money. We all need the money, but that need must be justified in arithmetical terms, because increasing our VAT contribution to the Common Market is not like any other increase in taxation.
  In Westminster Budgets, taxes are often increased and, in subsequent years, reduced. What we are being asked to do here, however, is to transfer permanently an additional part of our revenue to an extra-parliamentary, extra-national body. That is the constitutional question that affects the historic duties and powers of the Parliament to which I have been elected.
  I am not an absolutist on this issue. Absolutes are dangerous in politics. Nevertheless, to export our powers of taxation in this way requires rather more reason and justification than we have been given to date. I also have difficulty in reconciling such a step with the policies on which we on the Government Benches were elected last year. We stand for lower taxation and reduced public expenditure, yet here we are, being invited to move in the other direction. I see nothing especially virtuous in European public expenditure.
  In the regional and social funds, in crude terms, money flows from London to Brussels; it is translated into eight languages, is subjected to a political bargaining process and then comes back to London. It is then spent on projects that might or might not have been worth while. That is not my idea of the European vision. It is not the cornerstone of my political faith and it is not why I supported entry into the Common Market in 1973.
  I might be able to swallow some of my objections if I were more enthusiastic about the package of agricultural reforms presented to the House. I represent a large milk-producing constituency, which is tied to milk production every bit as much as any part of Ireland. We are being asked to cut back while Ireland is being permitted to expand. No doubt, these milk surpluses have to be controlled, although, if the fault lies anywhere, it lies with the European Commission, the European Assembly, and the Council of Ministers, and not with British farmers.
  Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Commission has led the way in trying to bring things under control, and that the real responsibility lies with the Council of Ministers? For the past three years, we have seen this bidding-up process, which has led to even bigger surpluses. The Commission at least tried to make a start in this as far back as 1981.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not absolve any part of the European institution, and it would not be my intention even if I knew the answers to allocate blame precisely. The point is that exactly the same structure and institutions remain intact. If I were convinced that there had been profound reforms and that there was a new institution arising that might take a more realistic look at the future of agricultural spending, I might be more sympathetic to the idea of transferring more resources to those institutions.
  I accept that there have to be cuts. I do not fall into the trap that Labour Members fall into of opposing an increase in own resources while also opposing the necessary cuts
  894
  in spending. I can see that there have to be cuts, but how is the axe to fall? Which sectors of agriculture are to be cut? Ministers said that one aim was to correct the imbalance between corn and horn, but this has not happened. A bigger cut in cereal prices, if it had come about, would have been attractive. It would have helped livestock producers and would have been good for the countryside and for the European taxpayer. As it is, dairy farmers have suffered a 45 per cent. reduction in real income since 1977 whilst cereal farmers have enjoyed a rise of 60 per cent. Nor do we know how the quotas will operate.
  I have misgivings about the use of quotas in principle and would have preferred a straight price cut. It will have been a mistake if one of the things that comes out of this series of negotiations is a permanent milk quota system in Britain.
  The price mechanism should take over from quotas to limit production in the longer term. Such price cuts are painful—I do not disguise that—but they are preferable to the inequitable and unfair system of quotas that will be imposed on national and individual milk producers.
  The crisis caused by a shortage of cash should be an opportunity for a profound change, not an opportunity for postponement. The economies imposed on the milk sector are unfair and discriminatory, and I have not found that the case for the increase in own resources has been adequately made out.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: We have been in Europe for the last 10 years, in which time it has cost us roughly £1·5 million a day. One must therefore ask what, after spending £1·5 million a day, have we got out of it? Has it been of any benefit to our society?
  In my short contribution to the debate, I wish to concentrate on my constituency, which gives an accurate reflection of what has happened to the country. The constituency has two halves to it, one physically very large and the other very small. In the very small physical area, glass is the predominant industry, and in the very large part of it farming is the predominant industry. Much of the land area of the constituency is farmland, some of it owner-occupied and some of it tenanted. I asked myself one simple question during the recent negotiations in Europe concerning the farming sector and in the other negotiations that have taken place in the last few years: how has my constituency benefited? The answer is that it has not.
  There is an old saying that, if one is going to play the game, one should play by the rules. If one is to play by the rules, one should find out what the rules are. I regret that in this land we have never bothered to find out what the rules are. The rules by which we are supposed to play the game are not the rules by which the rest of Europe plays the game, and I make no bones about saying that. In the glass industry, as in the case of energy, and energy support, what does one find? The Belgians, the French and the Germans have hidden subsidies to their industries, by means of energy prices which are low and subsidised. We play by the rules. As a result, our glass is more expensive to produce. Therefore, we produce less of it, and we suffer import penetration. In this free market of ours, in which everything is supposed to be fair and above board, our industry suffers, and the industries of the rest of Europe profit.

  895
  One finds that the same situation arises with the Government. The Government seem not to understand the rules when it comes to glass. I give a simple example from the recent Budget. The Goverment imposed VAT on double glazing, forgetting that the French and Germans have a support system for people who wish to buy double glazing. I mention that because, in this free market of ours, apparently we do not play by the same rules that apply to everyone else. The list is endless, and includes farm support systems and the transfer of animals, carcases and various other food products across Europe. What happens? Everyone else has one set of rules, and we have another. We do not play the game by the same set of rules, yet we pay £1·5 million a day for the privilege of belonging to this rather expensive little club.
  I do not pretend to be an expert on Europe, but I am an observer of what happens in my constituency. The fanning aspects of my constituency encompass dairy herds and cereal crops. Much of what has been said earlier in the debate is very true. It is ludicrous that we have a milk industry that supplies roughly 80 per cent. of our needs, yet we are told that we must have a reduction in our productive capacity of approximately 7·5 per cent. Quotas must also be considered. As a result, we will supply less to meet our needs. In supplying less to meet our needs, we shall have to import more. From where will these imports come? Of course, they will come from Europe. Treated milk will be flowing quietly in from the east coast ports to meet the needs of our society while our own diary farmers will be slaughtering their cattle, and our herds will start to decrease. I cannot see the logic of this. To belong to this club costs us £1·5 million a day, and so it will continue.
  In the debate, the lovely little phrase "own resources" has been used by the Chancellor. It seems that own resources will be increased because of an increase in the percentage of VAT. We are not told when this will occur or how much more it will cost us to belong to this little club which signals the beginning of the slaughter of our dairy herds. Once that happens, we shall produce less milk and, in effect, will be asking for inefficiency.
  The one advantage of belonging to the famous club is that our agriculture — which has served us so well, meets our needs and wishes to expand and become more efficient and, therefore, more productive, which is what we expect of any industry — is once again to be penalised by a series of quotas, premiums and goodness knows what else. That is the price of membership of that cosy little club, which costs us £1·5 million a day.
  The problems are endless. As I was told earlier today, there is only one possible solution. The time has come to stop messing about. It is no good saying, "Look what the Labour Government did between 1974 and 1979", because that leads to the retort, "Look what the Conservative Government did between 1979 and 1984." The answer to both remarks is, "Precious little." Neither took the matter by the throat.
  We must say either that we have a European concept that is a free trade area where the farce of propping up inefficiency is eliminated and where we do not pay ridiculous subsidies here, there and everywhere, or that it must be a really free trade and take out the barriers, let the goods flow and let the efficiency of our partners benefit both them and us.
  I am talking about a different form of European market — one that recognises the concept that trade flows
  896
  without customs barriers, petty restrictions, bureaucracy and the other things for which we currently pay £l·5 million a day. The only benefit that we have achieved during the past 10 years of membership is, regrettably, that Britain now has the lowest level of supplementary benefit as a percentage of former earnings than anywhere in Europe.
  The price of 10 years membership at £1·5 million a day is that our unemployed are worse off than anywhere in Europe. Much of that unemployment has been caused by the stupid bureaucracy of what is happening within the EEC. All that the recent negotiations will produce in the farming sector is further unemployment. Unless we actually grasp the problem by the throat and say that it must stop, that there must be free trade across Europe that will allow us to compete on the same terms and by the same rules as the remainder of Europe, the only alternative is to rewrite the rules of the treaty of Rome—in other words, to tear it up.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The House has been treated to a remarkable and—dare I say it—unusually positive speech about Europe from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). His theme was the need to institutionalise our relations with the continent—with a continent that is determined to organise itself, which fact in itself imposes certain conditions upon our association with it.
  The right hon. Gentleman argued that we need to change the existing institutions of the EC, which are the expression of that necessary European interrelationship, so as to make them more suitable for the United Kingdom. I hope that he will recognise, in this more positive vein, that this is precisely what the Government are trying to do in these negotiations by seeking to change two key institutions of the EC—the CAP and the budget.
  Anyone who has been following the saga of the budget negotiations and the question of Community budget reform—and I have followed them closely during the past five years in the European Parliament—knows that it is remarkable how far the British Government have succeeded in shifting the focus of discussion on to the ground that we staked out in 1979. This is true not only on the broad questions of principle but also of the questions of detail.
  Hon. Members may think that some of these points are obvious, but seen from the other side of the Channel—and an interesing feature of the debate is that we have had some unusual glimpses of how things look from the other side of the Channel—they have not been at all obvious.
  Let me go through some of these points. The Government has succeeded in getting across the idea that basic changes in CAP regimes are necessary to cut costs. We have now had agreement not only on the broad principle of such reform, notably in the dairy regime, which has just been changed, but also in the details of those changes: we have got across the idea that exemptions should be kept to a minimum; the intensiveness levy has been dropped; the oils and fats tax has been dropped; and so also has been the idea of restrictions on cereal imports.
  Secondly, we have got across the need for a system of financial discipline to govern not only the so-called "non-obligatory" part of the European budget but also the "obligatory" agricultural expenditure. We have also got across the controversial principle that expenditure should

  897
  be dictated by revenue, rather than the reverse. If I point out that there is a rubric in the printed text of the European budget which affirms precisely the opposite principle, it will be readily understood how right the Secretary of State is to emphasise the novelty of this new position.
  Thirdly, we have got across some recognition that the problem of the British net contribution is a genuine one, that there can be no dismissal of the sums involved and that the old French theme of the juste retour and its unacceptability cannot be a reasonable way of proceeding with the budget.
  Fourthly, we have won some recognition that this British problem cannot be solved merely by the development of Community policies and by expenditure on policies other than those of agriculture—what might be called the Italian thesis. We have won recognition that a budget mechanism is necessary: it has been a major achievement to get that principle accepted within the Community.
  I believe that all of this represents striking progress in fulfilling the vision of the right hon. Member for Down, South of changes in the Community so as to make it a more comfortable institution for us to belong to.
  The Community has now reached what could be the final stages of this negotiation. We had a breakthrough at the Agriculture Council last weekend and we have a meeting of Foreign Ministers on Monday and Tuesday of next week. This debate in the House is our chance to let Her Majesty's Government know how we view the choices and the compromises that are facing them at this crucial time.
  Of course, it is very difficult to comment on this because so much of the substance of the negotiations, as well as the atmosphere, is an unknown quantity to all of us on the Back Benches. But, subject to that consideration, my feeling is that the Government face some very difficult choices and that they will have to make those choices in a spirit of sober realism, in which I think this House should attempt to participate.
  Thus, for example, although I argued against it when we had a debate on this subject on 20 February, I accept the Government's move to base the calculation of our net contribution not on the concept that all the own resources should be included but that it should be done on the basis of the VAT share only in own resources. The 250 million ecu difference between these bases is an earnest of our desire for a settlement, and on that basis I can support it.
  I believe that the central difficulty that the Government face in this negotiation is that of how to find a mechanism that respects the fact that it is not possible for the net contribution of any member state, including Britain, to be limited to a fixed ceiling but which does not at the same time produce inequities and unacceptable situations as the budget expands in the future. That is the nub of the problem that the Government face in this negotiation.
  The system that is being discussed, based on the conclusions of the French presidency, is a very complex one, with its arrangements for thresholds and for what is coming to be called the ticket moderateur. Its very complexity must provoke doubts about its effectiveness. I remember very well the Dublin mechanism negotiated in 1975 by Harold Wilson, as he then was. I recall vividly the enthusiasm with which it was greeted, because there was, I think, a genuine belief in all quarters that it was
  898
  actually going to do the trick. It was an exceedingly complicated mechanism and the fact was that it failed to produce a penny piece for the United Kingdom.
  This one will certainly do much better—but I say to the House and to Ministers that we should not focus on the percentage of our net contribution that will be abated, however impressive that may be. We must focus on the absolute amounts that we shall have to pay, especially in future years.
  Here I have something of a nightmare about the situation in which we might find ourselves in, for example, 1990 — when we may have a growing deficit in our balance of payments and a progressively diminishing contribution from oil, with a question mark over the volume of manufacturing exports. The nightmare is that we may then find that on the Government's side of the balance of payments account there are not only hefty costs in the stationing of British forces on the continent under the NATO arrangements, not only transfers in the form of foreign aid which we must continue, but a net contribution to the European Community rising from perhaps £450 million which is acceptable in 1984 to a sum which might be double that, or even greater, in 1990. Such a sum would then be unacceptably high in absolute terms even though in relative terms in a Community of 12 Britain could no longer be classed among the less prosperous member states because the average will fall as the Community expands among the Mediterranean countries.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am always puzzled by the concentration of the hon. Gentleman and others on the figures of £450 million and £1·5 million a day. With respect, those figures are fleabites when set against the real cost to the United Kingdom. The common agricultural policy costs us between £5,000 million and £6,000 million a year. That is the cost to the taxpayer and the consumer. That increases the £1·5 million per day to about £14 million or £15 million a day. We should include also the disaster that has befallen our manufacturing trade, which has gone from surplus into deficit by about £5,000 million annually. If the figures are added together, they produce a sum of about £28 million a day and not £1·5 million.
  Mr. Jackson: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement of a former leader of his party and Prime Minister that "one cannot quantify an élan". It is exceedingly difficult to establish what the net economic effects have been outside the budget of our membership of the European Community. There have undoubtedly been costs on the agriculture side and there is a dispute about the extent to which our membership has assisted growth in the industrial economy and the degree to which that has counterbalanced the increased agricultural costs. The hon. Gentleman is on exceedingly difficult terrain when he raises these issues. The costs that he is describing are by no means as indisputable as he thinks. When we talk about the European Community budget, at least the sums involved are clear and it is possible to make a reasonable judgment. So I suggest that we should concentrate on the budget, which is the subject before us.
  Mr. Robin Cook: If my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is so mistaken, why is the hon. Gentleman so dismal about the 1990s? Why is he so lacking in confidence about the future that we shall have after another 10 years?
  Mr. Jackson: I described a nightmare, and it is one that I hope will not come to pass. It is part of the nightmare that in 1990 we have a problem with oil and with our manufacturing trade. I hope and believe that we shall be able to avoid the latter problem. In that context, a net contribution of the sort that I have been describing would not be regarded as excessive. However, if the problems envisaged in my nightmare were to come to pass it would be regarded as excessive—which is why we need to find a mechanism to guard against that prospect.
  I shall return to the main line of my speech. Many hon. Members will feel that the logic of my position is that the Government should not seek to reach a conclusion next week on this mechanism outlined in the European Council presidency's paper. It is a mechanism which undoubtedly carries with it the risks that I have described. So we must recognise that the choice is an extremely difficult one.
  Let us ask ourselves what will happen if there is no agreement next week on the basis of the presidency paper. At the very least, there will be a possible loss of the undoubted positive features of the presidency paper, of which there are many. We would see a loss of the momentum that has now been created in the negotiations by the breakthrough on the agricultural front. We would see a hardening of positions in other Community countries as well as in Britain as we go through the European election campaign. That could be serious.
  As the Government face these decisions, the House and the Government must be realistic about the strengths and the weaknesses of our bargaining position.
  Too often in these debates it has been said that we have "only to wait for the money to run out". Let us not underestimate the problems involved in the money running out. For instance, we must consider the consequences for the agriculture industry. Many hon. Members will be more aware this week than they have been for some time of how important British agriculture interests are at stake in the negotiations. Moreover, let us not underestimate the ingenuity that our partners may use in stretching Community finances. The 1 per cent. VAT ceiling is pretty elastic: the buffers may turn out to be made of rubber. For instance, the non-agricultural parts of the budget could he raided if the European Parliament and a majority in the Council agreed. Or, more likely, there could be an agreement among the other nine countries to finance the CAP by national payments outside the budget — payments which would not be returnable to the Community budget—[AN HON. MEMBER: "What a good idea."] I do not agree that this is a good idea, because we would have to pay to finance the policy in Britain, but we would not be able to recoup that expenditure, and that could go on for a long time.
  We must face other consequences of a failure to reach an agreement. The payment for 1983, the refund of £450 million, would not be made. We would not have cover for 1984, which could involve a sum in excess of £450 million. And there would be no prospect of a refund next year or the year after. That would point inexorably to the United Kingdom withholding payments.
  When hon. Members looked over the brink of this abyss two weeks ago, the general feeling was that we should pull back because of the dangers. Opposition Members are, of course, light with the law: we see that not only in Europe but in other areas of national life. Irrespective of any high legal and constitutional principle, on which there are a
  900
  variety of views, there can be no doubt that from a political point of view that course is fraught with heavy risks both in domestic and in international terms.
  So the decisions that the Government will have to take before next Monday and during the negotiations are difficult and the arguments about which course to take are finely balanced. My conclusion, for what it is worth, is that the Government should now try hard to close the deal. At the same time, I hope that they will seek to obtain some recognition of the fact that the complex mechanism which is envisaged may not work out satisfactorily in the end.
  Although last month I argued against it, in the light of this argument I might now perhaps be forgiven for believing that there may be some advantage for us in the presidency paper's insistence that
  "the mechanism will operate only until the exhaustion of the new own resources."
  Of course there is a risk that if the mechanism operates only until the exhaustion of the new own resources, the whole matter might be reopened to our disadvantage and I thought that this would be to our disadvantage last month. But as the details of the mechanism begin to take shape I must say that I see a more than compensating advantage in the matter being kept open in this way, because if the mechanism does not work out satisfactorily we shall then be able to reopen the question.
  For, in the nature of things, the question of financing the Community will not go away. I have never been one to argue that the sums involved in the British net contribution are de minimis. They are important sums for Britain, and they will probably become even more important. This is not just a British question. It is a question that will not go away, because, using the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South, it is of fundamental importance for the "institutionalisation" of Europe. The history of all federations is clear— and I have no doubt that the Community is a federation[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — in the making —[HON MEMBERS: "Ah!"]. Hon. Members may disagree with that judgment, but history will show in due course whether it is correct. History tells us that in the organisation of such entities — or institutions, to use the right hon. Gentleman's word — the financial aspects are fundamental. They are a rock on which either a whole complex splits asunder or on which, alternatively, a stable structure is built. Although Britain's efforts have been much misunderstood in the Community, we are trying to build —or rebuild—the Community's finances on a rock of stability—and we must never abandon that object.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker——
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that it is a principle in the House that one's vote is supposed to follow one's voice? That being so, is it not also logical that one's voice should follow one's vote? As the Liberal party earlier made great play about not wanting this debate, is it not illogical for a Liberal Member to seek to speak in it, especially as about 15 minutes of the time available was denied to other hon. Members by that party's behaviour?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Every hon. Member is entitled to seek to speak. Neither I nor the

  901
  hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) can anticipate what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) intends to say.
  Mr. Johnston: I shall not spend time referring to the earlier argument, which was perfectly clear and simple. The Liberal party believes that it should have more time to raise Supply matters. I do not think that that was an unfair argument.
  It is always difficult to comment on other people's negotiations which fail. There is a natural human tendency to believe that one could have done everything so much better oneself. Inevitably, too, one is ignorant of exactly what happened, what was on offer, how things were played, what relationships were like and why.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Johnston: With respect, I have hardly started.
  Mr. Rogers: How long do we have to wait?
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long if I am not subjected to continued interruptions.
  One reads with incredulity in the "Insight" column of The Sunday Times, or perhaps it is The Observer, that the summit collapsed because Chancellor Kohl was not getting the regular supply of nutrients that his considerable frame requires. On the other hand, one knows that people's attitudes are often conditioned by how they feel.
  I do not think that my Social Democrat friends will mind my remarking——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Where are they?
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) always responds on cue. I am sure that they will not mind my saying, as we did a considerable amount of negotiating over three years——
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Johnston: —that I emerged from some particularly gruelling sessions wondering how on earth people managed when they did not start from a common political basis and spoke different languages—however good the interpreters, nuances and shades of emphasis may be changed—and when their historical perspectives and domestic pressures were quite different. I certainly do not belittle the immense difficulty of such negotiations for any Government, but one thing is clear. Our Government, our representatives and, indeed, our Prime Minister showed neither negotiating skill nor political leadership in a situation fraught with enormous long-term dangers for everyone.
  The position of Ireland on milk, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), is a good example. Given the dependence on milk of the Irish economy, it was clear that a special deal should and would be struck. I was recently looking at the Government's Green Paper on the budget problem which set out the percentage deviations from the norm of GDP per head in 1980–81. We were running at about minus seven, and the Irish were running at minus 50. It was evident that some arrangement would be made for them.
  902
  Hon. Members on both sides will agree that there was a political need to build on the improved relations which stemmed from the replacement of Mr. Haughey by Dr. FitzGerald. The proper course would have been for the United Kingdom to play a sympathetic role. Instead, the Prime Minister moved in with sure flat-footedness. She treated Dr. FitzGerald with inexcusable arrogance —there was no room for problems of interpretation there —and in the end the Irish got their settlement and we ended up with no diplomatic advantage at all. That was not an example of good negotiating.
  The House, the farmers and the country deserve an explanation of how the milk agreement is to be operated. I am in a strong position to be critical because I have often stood here and defended the CAP, even while recognising the evident need to restrain open-ended production.
  Mr. Buchan: Even when it was wrong?
  Mr. Johnson: I have not defended anything when it was wrong. Since the basis of the agreement has been known, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has raised questions on these matters on several occasions. I refer hon. Members to the Official Report for 22 March and to an application under Standing Order No. 10 on 2 April. None of the questions that my hon. Friend asked have been answered.
  I accept that the whole basis of the CAP was to provide a stable basis for agriculture, for supply and for the farmers. There is, however, a real danger that the effect of the milk agreement will be an abrupt change in direction, with all the problems that that would occasion, not least in areas of the country which the Government and the Community agree deserve regional assistance. That does not make much sense.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Truro has already drawn attention to the grave problems facing Cornwall, where 80 per cent. of agriculture is in the dairy sector. At the other end of the country, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the agreement is likely to threaten the Kirkwall cheese factory, which is a vital part of that tiny economy.
  It makes no sense to apply cuts in areas which are already recognised as having special problems. At the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary said categorically that dairy farmers have long realised that over-production cannot go on. How, then, does he explain the advice given by the Ministry of Agriculture a year ago to farmers in Cornwall, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro on 22 March? My hon. Friend said that in January 1983 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was present at an NFU meeting. There were questions:
  "One particular gentleman received an answer, the words of which, I suspect, will ring in his ears for a long time. He said to the Minister, 'The surplus is as it is and is increasing. What do you want us to do? What do you advise the agriculturalists in this room do do?' I nearly fell off my chair in sheer disbelief at the reply. It was, 'Produce, produce, produce.' That was the reply given at a select agricultural meeting in an area like mine where farming is so important to the ecomony."—[Official Report, 22 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1296.]
  That is the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro, and it is not a good sign that the Government have been pursuing a sensible approach to this matter.
  The Liberal party accepts the need to cut, but it must be phased in sensibly. Most hon. Members will have read the article by Hugh Noyes in The Times today. The Labour

  903
  party seems to be saying that the cuts are not enough, that they are not sufficiently draconian and that they are not quick enough. The Labour party is becoming the anti-agricultual party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What is the meaning of that?
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Major.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Major.]
  Mr. Johnston: If the Labour party's view is that the cuts must be made more rapidly, that would have an even more devastating effect than the existing proposals are likely to have on the dairy industry. Everyone is waiting for the Government to tell us how the quota system will work and whether it is to be applied to dairies or to farms. The sooner we hear something about that, the better.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly clear that the Liberal party believes that the cuts in milk production are too large. What is the Liberal policy on how the Common Market should dispose of the 11 million-tonne surplus of milk that will be produced this year as a result of the agreement?
  Mr. Johnston: I did not say that the cuts were too large. What I said—I thought that the hon. Gentleman was listening with his usual politeness—was that the phasing of those cuts must be more sensible. There cannot be sudden changes in agricultural policy without their causing considerable hardship to many people.
  I wish now to concentrate on the political and industrial problems that face the Community and, therefore, Britain. The Liberal party has never disputed the necessity to have a budgetary basis which related our contribution to our gross national product. On the contrary, the Liberal and Social Democratic concept of the Community has always underlined the pre-eminent need to work for economic convergence and the development of the equivalency of opportunity in the Community. However, that requires an approach very different from that adopted by the Government. Mr. Genscher, the German Foreign Minister, remarked perceptively after the failure of the summit that it had
  "floundered not on figures but on attitudes to Europe".
  There were proposals on the table from Denmark for a convergence fund and from West Germany for an evening-out based on gross national product. The basis was there, but what was lacking was good will or any vision——
  Mr. Skinner: To give in.
  Mr. Johnston: The crucial statistics behind the debate——
  Mr. Skinner: That is what it really means: to give in.
  Mr. Johnston: Since I have been subjected almost non-stop to interruptions by the hon. Member for Bolsover, may I say that good will is not an attribute of his.
  The crucial statistics behind the debate are that during the past 10 years the United States has created 19 million new jobs, Japan has created 5 million and the European Community has created only 2 million. However, in the elections to the European Parliament in June this year, the
  904
  Community will have an electoral roll of 40 million people more than the electoral roll for the American presidential elections. During the 1970s, industrial production in the Community increased by 7 per cent.; in America it increased by 12 per cent. and in Japan by 28 per cent. That is the challenge on the economic side.
  Mr. Harris: On the European elections, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that a major plank in the SDP-Liberal case will be a complete abandonment of the right of veto, as their European colleagues have advocated in the European Parliament?
  Mr. Johnston: No, we have not said any such thing. What we have said is that there should certainly be a steady movement towards more majority voting.
  On the political side, no one has spoken about security, disarmament, the precarious world balance or the capacity to exert influence in areas such as the middle east, where the balance could tilt disastrously, where neither the United States nor the Soviet Union is trusted and where no single European country can be effective. Therefore, there is an opportunity for the Community and for us through the Community to be more effective in these matters. These are the things at the heart of the future of all of us.
  There is certainly a need for an expansion in own resources. The late agreement on the ESPRIT programme is of enormous potential importance, but with a budget of $700 million over five years I do not think that it can properly begin to compete with the United States and Japan. In 1982 the United States spent £22 billion on research and the Community only £15 billion. As a percentage of gross national product, we spent under 2 per cent. and Japan spent 3 per cent. These are the important statistics.
  The extraordinary thing about the debate has been the refusal of either Government or Opposition to stress both the opportunity presented by the Community and the threat that the failure of the Community could bring in its train. Time has been spent bickering about who did best. Records have been compared——
  Mr. Skinner: The Liberal party and the SDP make a big thing about stopping the bickering and being the people in the middle like general arbiters solving everything. If that is the case, why is it that in the Common Market elections we have the spectacle only a few miles from this building of a Liberal and a Social Democrat sparring with each other for the same London seat? If they cannot stop the bickering in the alliance between the SDP and the Liberals, how can they stop it in Europe?
  Mr. Johnston: I think that a success rate of 80 out of 81 is not bad.
  Mr. Skinner: They are falling out.
  Mr. Johnston: Only in one out of 81 seats has there been a falling-out. That is not a significant statistic even for the hon. Gentleman to quote.
  The Foreign Secretary described the Labour party as "half-hearted and obstructive". That does not seem to be an unfair description of the Conservative Government. Not one word of the speech of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was constructive. He did not say one single thing about what the Labour party would do or hoped to see done. He had the gall to criticise the Government for being abrasive, as if to suggest that the Labour party by contrast was silky and co-operative. If one

  905
  believes that, one believes that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to deny that that is what he said. The fact is that the vaunted increase in VAT to 1·4per cent. will not be adequate. The Community is already spending on existing programmes at the rate of 1·3 per cent., leaving out of account any cheque for us, which, as the Government have said, is rightly due.
  Therefore, the proposed increase allows no margin for unfavourable movements in agricultural prices, let alone for any significant changes in the budget, such as boosting expenditure on research, to which I have referred, increasing the regional fund and increasing the social fund to smooth the inevitable transition from the old industries in which we were dominant to the new ones in which we must find a way to compete.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman says that it is insufficient. Does that mean that he is calling for a higher value added tax remuneration to the Community?
  Mr. Johnston: Yes, and I think that something over 2 per cent.;—
  Mr. Skinner: Does the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) know that?
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will recall that when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) made his final speech as president of the Commission, he called for an increase of own resources to 2·5 per cent.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman spell it out? The Liberal party wants over 2 per cent. of our value added tax paid to Europe. Is he now saying, with the authority of the former leader of the SDP and one of its principal spokesmen on these matters, that the SDP wants 2·5 per cent.? Will he also explain what that means in hundreds of millions of pounds?
  Mr. Johnston: I am saying that 1·4 per cent., which has been spoken of, will not meet existing commitments and at the same time allow for the development of the programme about which I have been talking, including research, the regional fund and the social fund.
  Mr. Buchan: How many hundreds of millions of pounds would that involve?
  Mr. Johnston: I do not wish to prolong my remarks. They have already been long, although I have been interrupted considerably, and I have always thought it a good thing to give way. I cannot see this country prospering other than through a more effective European Community, and I cannot see us achieving economic recovery or political stability unless that takes place.
  Several hon. Membersrose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Speeches are becoming expansionary. I remind the House that long speeches are made only at the expense of other hon. Members' time.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) took pride in having given way. The whole of his speech was about giving away everything that Britain
  906
  has to the European Community. He has some endearing characteristics. He finds something wrong in everything that British statesmen say about the Community and something right in everything that European statesmen say about it. Another of his endearing characteristics is that anything that a Community country wants, or anything that the Community itself wants, is right, and they must have it, whereas any demand that the United Kingdom makes on the Community is wrong and curmudgeonly.
  I take as my text motion No. 628 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), and I thank him for the signal service that he has done in putting forward the definitive reformists' motion. I hope that I do not offend him when I say that I have striven for a long time to achieve such a succinct motion. In it, my hon. Friend says that he
  "is gravely concerned for the political future and international credibility of the European Economic Community",
  a point that was well made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I shall return to that issue. My hon. Friend goes on to say that the greater interests of Europe—not, note, the EEC—
  "lie not solely in mountains, lakes and money."
  I caution my hon. Friend. Perhaps he has not travelled sufficiently to know how important those mountains and lakes—and, I must add, forests—are to history and to the cultural identity of Europe. "Powerful forces rise with the mists from our wooded hills and lakes. Do not tamper with them!"
  As for money, what has that to do with the political future and international credibility of Europe? It is money that divides and is causing problems and distortions at the moment. It would be naive to believe that the statesmanlike oratory of the participants in each Euro wrangle is not prompted by a finely tuned calculation of the outcome of each policy in terms of national cash flow. It is money that gives ambition to the bureaucrats and hypocrisy to the discussions of Europe's future. Concentration on money prevents the development of policies. It is money that has been the enemy of progress towards our common destiny.
  I agreed with every word of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she looked forward to a Europe that would take the initiative on world problems, build a more helpful relationship between East and West and work in partnership with the United States — to defend and promote the values and beliefs of Western civilisation. That is the way to strengthen the political future and international credibility of Europe. It needs no money.
  The other European nations may see things differently. Perhaps they want or would accept a greater pile of European money—their vested interests obscuring the underlying realities. The smaller nations, wishing to reassert their nationality at the higher European level, are eager to dispense with their sovereignty and fall over themselves to surrender policies and funds for the Community. Ireland and Italy are already swimming in Community money. They are hooked on the drug and crave more. The benefits to France's swollen agriculture will always exceed any likely membership fee. Germany, guilt-ridden from the second world war and revelling in the rich opportunities provided for her factories, has always been ready to concede in the past.
  We joined the Community on the basis of levies plus the 1 per cent. calculation of VAT. There is no moral reason for us to concede an increase, nor is there any sense

  907
  in it. The Prime Minister has said that we would be prepared to consider an increase in own resources if agricultural spending were brought under control, but after the latest agreement that is hardly the case, with reports predicting a surge of £2,000 million in extra expenditure on the common agricultural policy this year — an increase of more than 20 per cent. In a situation where those responsible for negotiating and discussing the deal are unable to put a figure on it, they are therefore by definition unable to claim that it is under control.
  The Prime Minister has also said that we shall consider an increase if there is a fair deal on the budget. When that was first discussed, we talked about making a contribution towards the running costs—the administration—of the EEC. Those costs are 750 million ecu each year. The figure being bandied about in the press as the minimum rebated net contribution that we could get away with is 750 million ecu each year—the whole of the Community's running costs. It is hardly likely that we could accept that as the basis for considering an increase in own resources, especially when that figure can only increase as our GDP and Community expenditure rise; or perhaps as we are booby-trapped in further negotiations.
  We have said, too, that we would support new policies within the Community, such as the entry of Spain and Portugal. We are told, however, that because Spain and Portugal are not the wealthiest members of the Community they would be net recipients. Britain is not one of the wealthiest members of the Community. There is no logic in saying that we should pay if Spain and Portugal are expected to receive. We do not receive rebates. Even if we were so generous, and were to have satisfactory answers to the poignant questions put earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), Spain and Portugal will not commence Community membership until 1986. There will be a five-year transition period. The cost, at its most generous, will be 5 per cent. of existing own resources. We do not need to consider an increase in own resources at this stage on behalf of the membership of Spain and Portugal.
  What about ESPRIT? We have received answers to parliamentary questions about it. It is paid for out of the Community budget at the moment. We do not need more money for that. We want to remove non-tariff barriers to trade. That is cost-free. We want a Community market in insurance and financial services. That is cost-free. We want further industrial co-operation between various firms in the Community. That can be done at a multilateral level by Governments and companies. It has nothing to do with the Commission. We do not want it to get its sticky fingers into that. It is cost-free for the Community, too. There are no policies that we should support that will cost the Community a single extra ecu.
  Let us consider what would happen if there were an increase in Community own resources. Where would the money go? There are three possibilities. First, much of it could be wasted. Much money is at the moment. One should consider the report of the Court of Auditors. One should consider the 100 million ecu loss each year on olive oil and the leakage that is seeping into the snakeskin wallets of the Mafia. There could be more waste. Let us not forget that.
  Second, there is a suggestion that such an increase could be spent on new policies. What new policies would be better funded by Brussels than by national Governments? I know that my friends on the other side of
  908
  the Chamber want regional and social policies to deal with unemployment. They are entitled to want that. Would they not rather work out those policies here than have the money and policies laundered and decided in the Berlaymont building in Brussels? Would it not be better if they did that themselves?
  The third possibility is the answer to the question: What will the money be spent on? It will be spent on one thing — agriculture. That will happen, whatever we say. It will scoop the pool and take the money. Agriculture Ministers, whatever disciplines appear to be devised by Finance Ministers, will continue to solve their problems at the expense of other people and other programmes. There is no mechanism yet devised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire so brilliantly said, that would overcome that problem.
  Of course, we must take account of the needs and wishes of our own farmers. The recent agricultural cuts will doubtless cause hardship. Those hardships will produce political imperatives requiring expenditure. There will be a slump in the price of cull cows, and the beef price will go down. There will be squalls and cries of anguish, and national Governments will be required to provide funds, and why not? There will be different hardships in different parts of the Community. It is better to devise national measures to finance the marginal difference in our agricultural economies than to resort to the hyperactive cash tills and blanket programmes of the Community.
  Another reason has been advanced for an increase in own resources. It is the means of negotiating our current and future rebates. Why must we justify it in this way? When we joined the Community we were promised that agriculture, which was then running at 60 per cent. of expenditure, would fall to 40 per cent. of expenditure. It has not. When we joined the Community, we were told that if unacceptable situations arose, solutions would be found. They have arisen, and the solutions should be found. We have a moral right to cut our contribution, particularly because we have reached our present state through the vested interests of the majority of our partners voting for policies that will perpetuate and continue to perpetuate our disadvantage. They vote; we pay. We have a legal right. The House of Commons makes the decisions on how we spend our money. If we have an unsatisfactory situation within the treaty and the Community, we here have the legal right to change that situation. Our case for rebate is just. It is strange that some people consider that justice demands that concessions come from the innocent.
  I do not underestimate the difficulty of the task confronting the Government in these negotiations. Everybody has had our money before; everybody is ranged against us—nine against one. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has fought our battle as nobody else could have fought it. If there is a suggestion that there should he an increase in own resources, it is not the Government or the Council of Ministers that will decide, it is the House and the Parliaments of the several Community countries that will decide. If we are asked for an increase in own resources, it is a constitutional issue of the first magnitude.
  Any increase in own resources to the European Community comes from a finite source of money. If the Community has more, we have less. If the Community has more, it will make the decision on more policies and we will decide on fewer. If the Community has more, the European institutions will have more power and we here will have less.

  909
  If we agree to an increase in own resources, it will be somewhat akin to loss of virginity. The indulgence could be habit-forming. The House — the mother of Parliaments — could be reduced to a discarded and barren whore.
  I am against an increase in own resources. I stand on a platform which is against the increase. I put my standard on that platform. I hope that other Members will do likewise.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Follow that if you can.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: It would be very difficult to do that. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was trying to tell the House, but he was using the most peculiar expressions.
  I listened with both pleasure and astonishment to the Foreign Secretary, when he opened the debate. The Foreign Secretary of course, is disguised—I am sorry, described—as a master of detail and negotiation. My Freudian slip is probably more appropriate. I listened with pleasure because, frankly, I like a good laugh and I found the beginning of his contribution very humorous. I listened with astonishment because I came to realise that he actually believed what he was saying.
  I in no way doubt his integrity, but one thing that I begin to doubt seriously is his ability and competence to do the job that has been entrusted to him. The record of the Foreign Secretary in this Parliament is absolutely appalling. For him to come back from Brussels with yet another failure does not surprise me at all. If we go over the sorry saga of the last few months—Grenada, where, for some days, he lost the Governor-General, GCHQ and the irreparable damage that he has done to us and to our image in Europe—we see that the Foreign Secretary is not competent to carry out the business of this country in negotiation with our European partners.
  This is one of a series of sad failures on his part. His allusion to the petty cash that he lost on the way back from Brussels, as compared with the total success claimed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, simply illustrates what I am saying. Even our traditional friends and allies in Europe are turning away from us. Many people in Belgium, Holland and Denmark are asking what the matter is with Great Britain when it negotiates on such issues. The Foreign Secretary should resign. It is his function to prepare the details for the Prime Minister to go along to summits and make the deals. When the Prime Minister has gone along to summits, she has come back with failure after failure. The Foreign Secretary needs a rest, and the sooner the Prime Minister gives him a long rest on the Woolsack, the better for the country. We invite the Prime Minister to think of a better colleague to prepare the business of the country. I should not suggest the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who is lounging on his seat. Before he starts shouting across the Chamber, he should do a little homework.
  When I was asked to speak, I did a little homework by looking up the statements made after all the summit meetings to which the Prime Minister has been going. I will not bore the House with long extracts, but the meetings start from Strasbourg in June 1979, Dublin,
  910
  Luxembourg, Maastricht, Luxembourg, Venice — one can go through them and find names that we had forgotten, such as the Lancaster House summit, when we had the presidency. In all these negotiations, in all these sad, sorry stories, every one of the statements is the same, along the lines of, "We fight for Britain, we are batting for Britain." On all these occasions, as on this one, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have scored "ducks" again.
  Mr. Forth: I invite the hon. Gentleman, as I invited the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), to give us a catalogue of the successes of the Labour Government in their negotiations with the EEC, and then to compare that with the record of this Government, who have obtained magnificent rebates and who have taken us so far in reform of the European Community.
  Mr. Rogers: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, to which I listened with attention. I admired it. It was superb. The hon. Gentleman and I are old friends, so I was thrilled at what he said. He is right that this is part of a long battle, but when the Labour party was in power we were in the period of adjustment that followed our accession to the Community. After that there was a continual process of adjustment on many points.
  Some Conservative Members criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who conducted our negotiations, for being intractable and difficult in his negotiations. He was batting for Britain then, and was castigated by the Conservative party. Now the Conservatives come back, supposedly batting for Britain, but are bringing back no runs for Britain. What do they expect us to do now?
  One should put the matter into the context of the first meeting attended by the Prime Minister. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) for reminding me that the Prime Minister, when she reported back from Strasbourg, said:
  "At last, therefore, we have an agreement to tackle the inequitably high contribution that Britain at present makes to the European budget. The time for decisions will be at the next Council."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the then leader of the Labour party, in reply to the Prime Minister's statement said:
  "The right hon. Lady will have the support of the whole House in continuing the work that we began." —[Official Report, 26 June 1979; Vol 969, c. 288–9.]
  The last Labour Government, therefore, began the work during the adjustment period.
  Mr. Michael Colvin rose——
  Mr. Rogers: I will not give way. The reality of this sad and sorry situation, to which we have been led by an incompetent Foreign Secretary, is that we have been sold down the river again. Last year we were sold down the river on the fishing and budget negotiations. We were sold down the river on steel quotas. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who may be elevated if my wishes come true, that he ought to judge the proposed quota system very carefully.
  When quotas were imposed on the British steel industry, we kept to them, but the Italians and the Germans did not keep to theirs. The Italians are the only nation to have increased their steel production since the Davignon plan came into operation. The Germans, who were fined

  911
  for over-production under the old system, have not yet paid their fines, although there has been a renewal of the quota system in the last year.
  I do not know what quota system will operate in the milk industry, because I am not an expert in farming. However, I advise farmers to be very wary of any system that is imposed from Brussels because, if it operates like the steel quota system——
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn rose——
  Mr. Rogers: I will give way to any hon. Gentleman who has been present during the debate, but I will not give way to any Johnnie-come-lately to the debate.
  The reality of the deal that has been brought back is that we have been asked to buy our own rebates. We have agreed in principle to increasing VAT contributions to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 and 1·6 per cent. 1988. Who will pay? It will be the taxpayer and the consumer who are now paying food prices far above world prices. The farmers,
  912
  too, will pay in this deal that is supposedly the first step towards the new European dimension. Who will pay? Saddest of all, the people on fixed incomes will pay, as will the 4 million unemployed and the pensioners, those who cannot adjust their incomes to keep pace with inflation. Who will gain? That was let out of the bag by the Foreign Secretary in his statement. The only positive thing he had to say, on the balance of the new equation, was that London had become the financial centre of Europe. Our manufacturing industry and our farming industry can be destroyed, as long as the friends of the Conservative party in the City of London can be looked after. As long as the Government can manipulate the place where the money can make money, but not jobs and happiness, they will keep us in Europe. This is a sad day because of the last summit. At the end of the day, many of our people on low incomes and our many unemployed will be the ones to pay.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: We must not under-estimate the difficulties faced by the Minister of Agriculture, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in the farm negotiations. There have been some small successes, for which we must be grateful. The retention of the beef premium and the increase in the wool price are welcome, especially as some dairy farmers will have to turn to those enterprises.
  However, we are deeply disappointed not only for the dairy farmers who will suffer but for the taxpayers who will have to pay the extra price for the jobs that will be lost on farms and in the ancillary industries. Asking our farmers to cut milk production by 150 million tonnes—milk that could be consumed in Britain—will mean that less feed will be sold in Britain, fewer tractors, less agricultural machinery, fewer foragers and fewer mowers, and the effect will be felt throughout the economy.
  Many people find it incredible that France, which produces 170 per cent. of its dairy needs, has been asked to cut back by less than 3 per cent., compared with a 7 per cent. cut for our farmers who barely produce enough milk for our national needs. The stock answer to that point is that we are in something called the Common Market and, therefore, we must accept common responsibility for common surpluses. But are we really in a common market? Is there a common market in insurance and financial services? Are there really no trade barriers? Can a British microcomputer manufacturer go to France and sell his products to the French Government or to French local authorities?
  If we really could do all those things, I would be happier with the agricultural package. As it is, the CAP is the only really common Common Market policy. Now British farmers are being asked to produce less milk than they can efficiently produce — less milk than this country can consume—because the French, the Dutch and the Danes produce more than they can consume.
  An argument used by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday to justify the agricultural package was that dairy farmers were warned in 1980 and 1981 that they would be expected to cut back. I wish to remind the House of what has been said during the past two or three years. In June 1980, the then Secretary of State said that he would support proposals for greater responsibility for disposal of surpluses to be placed on those countries that produced the surpluses. As Britain contributed nothing to the surpluses, he said that he would oppose measures that would affect us.
  In November 1980, the issue was debated again. During that debate on EEC milk production, both sides of the House agreed that it would be ridiculous to reduce British milk production, as we were not self-sufficient. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked how, at a time when we were not self-sufficient in food, we could tell British farmers that they should produce less. Now, however, we are being asked to do just that, without even properly examining the alternatives such as price reduction or a system of taking land out of commission— a system that operates very well in the United States. It would probably cost the taxpayer considerably less than the current proposals. That has hardly been touched on in the EEC negotiations.
  914
  I am not against the EEC. We as a nation have derived some huge benefits from the Common Market, along with the disadvantages. Our contributions, vast as they are, represent barely 0·5 per cent. of our gross national product, but it has to be recognised that our agricultural interests are totally incompatible with those of the other members, to which it would appear that our farmers have now been sacrificed.
  The answer to the problem which has led to this situation certainly does not lie in the muddled policies of the Opposition, whose efforts to get a better deal out of the EEC make this Government's appear vastly successful by comparison. Nor does the answer lie in the increase in own resources to which we have so promptly agreed. The answer, I believe, lies in more national responsibility for surpluses by the nations that produce them, and more use of those surpluses within the Community to benefit Community consumers.
  We currently export food at great cost to Russia and import billions of dollars' worth of animal feed from America. Instead, we should denature our surplus grain and sell it to our livestock farmers at export prices to help them and benefit the consumer. Surplus grain should feed British pigs, not Soviet citizens.
  Overall, while I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary success in pressing our case for a lower net contribution, the agricultural package can only be a source of great concern to our dairy farmers. Dairy farmers in my constituency are left not knowing whether to pour milk down the drain, whether to kill cows or feed them less, and not knowing what to do with the tonnes of cake they have on order. These are hard-working, efficient farmers who have taken the Government's advice and invested and grafted. Now they are to suffer, not because they produce more milk than we want but because continental farmers not only want our taxpayers to finance their over-production, and to have our markets to sell their surpluses to; they now also want our farmers to cut production so that they can sell us more.
  They are like a huge, unhealthy, malignant cuckoo that has alighted in our nest and is determined to sit tight and feed off our taxpayers, our consumers and our farmers, and our Government are guilty of allowing them to get away with it. But the real tragedy is that the EEC, which was designed and set up to unite us and to heal old wounds, now itself threatens to divide us further.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and he, like many hon. Gentlemen, appeared to be putting a stronger and stronger case for taking the United Kingdom out of the EEC. That is the message that seems to be coming across and I am sure that it has been heard on the other side of the Channel as well. I think that all hon. Members recognise that changes in the EEC are inevitable and that pretty large changes will have to come very soon.
  I certainly accept that there needs to be change in the CAP. The fact that the common agricultural policy is taking 70 per cent. of the budget is clearly ridiculous. Considering the peanuts that are going to regional policy, clearly what is happening now is not what was promised at the time of the referendum in 1975. The money going into the CAP is not being used in a sensitive and effective manner and I believe that there needs to be a total policy

  915
  re-think, aiming at a greater equalisation of wealth throughout the Community. The CAP must change, as part of a total policy re-think taking in all aspects of policy, and the changes must be made in a phased manner that does not cause unnecessary chaos and hardship, which is the danger that we are facing now.
  Earlier today some figures were published in Cardiff relating to the contributions from Wales to the EEC over the last 10 years, from 1973 to 1982. The total contribution amounted to £736 million, according to this assessment. The receipts by Wales from the EEC in the same period amounted to £576 million, including all the various funds, leaving a shortfall of £160 million. That shortfall would he even larger if things like the regional contributions—which are not additional but are substitutes for money that should have come under other Acts of Parliament—were allowed for. The total shortfall taking that into account amounts to £539 million over this period, or £54 million per annum, and that is £1 per week for every family in Wales.
  The point I underline is that Wales, on the recently published league table, is forty-sixth out of 54 regions in the EC in terms of wealth. We are at the poverty end of this league table, yet we have to make that sort of contribution. That underlines the stupidity of the present situation. We want to see strategic budget changes and more money going to regional policy. The money that goes to finance regional policy should be additional to that which is spent under existing Acts and should not be a substitute form of finance. The framework of the Industry Act 1972 is inadequate for ensuring that money for regional policy is provided in sufficient measure.
  In the past two years the area which I represent in part, the county of Gwynedd, has received ½ per cent. and 1 per cent. of the money directed to Wales for industrial development. It is amongst the highest levels of unemployment and net outward migration and the lowest per capita personal income in Britain. If the EC funds are to be increased in the way that has been discussed, they must be used much more effectively than at present. We have had harmonisation of the shape of eggs and the insides of chickens, for example, but we need a harmonisation that will bring a better distribution of the wealth within the EC and an equalisation of per capita personal income.
  Milk production is of great concern to Wales, as is the impact that the changes to which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agreed will have on the dairy sector in Wales. In 1980, Welsh dairy farmers produced 1,575 million litres of milk. By 1983, production had increased to 1,772 million litres. The increase was more than 10 per cent. over those three years and it was deliberately encouraged.
  Some parts of Wales will be hit particularly hard by the changes which were announced over the past weekend. For example, the county of Dyfed produces half of the total production of milk in Wales. Of the 5,291 specialist dairy holdings in Wales, 3,269 of them are in Dyfed. There are twice as many milking cows in Wales in relation to the population as there are in England. The absolute level of milk production is greater in Wales than in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Milk as a component of GNP in Wales is over twice as important as in Britain as a whole. I contrast the settlement for the milk sector with that for the cereal sector. The 1 per cent. cut in price will do nothing to deal with the EC's chronic wheat surpluses.
  916
  In the statement made yesterday the dairy settlement was described by Conservatives in various unfavourable terms. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) described it as a "feeble settlement". The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon (Sir P. Mills) said that the
  "effect on the very small dairy producer in the wet areas will sometimes be disastrous".
  That is exactly what it will be in parts of Wales. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) commented
  "that the result of the settlement will be larger and more expensive surpluses, the impoverishment of the dairy farmer and the continued enrichment of the cereal farmer." — [Official Report, 2 April 1984; Vol 57, c. 665–666.]
  That is what we are fearful of in Wales. We are very dependent on dairy fanning, and cereal production plays a much smaller part of our farming. The settlement is directly contrary to the interests of Wales.
  There has been the lack of strategy for milk over recent years. A few years ago farmers were being encouraged to leave milk; they were being bought out. They were then allowed to drift back into dairy production. At that stage Ministry experts were encouraging them to produce more milk and the result was a 10 per cent. increase from 1980 to 1983. The dairy farmers are now facing a bleak future.
  Farmers in Wales invested from 1980 to 1983 so that they could contribute effectively to the increased production. They borrowed to do so — that was the advice that they received — and now they are facing disaster because of the changes that the Government have conceded. It has been assessed that between a fifth and a sixth of Welsh dairy farmers could be forced out of business as a result of the changes. Over 1,000 dairy farmers in Wales are going on to the rocks.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: The plight of the Welsh dairy farmers is one that must give us all great concern. As the hon. Gentleman and others have said, the dairy farmers have been encouraged over the past few years to produce more and more milk. If they have increased their production, they did so against a background which should have led them to be perfectly well aware that the day of reckoning was bound to come. The warnings were written up plainly that the lunacy could not continue. To speak as if they were being led down the road to the day of reckoning is rather to mislead opinion on this issue.
  Mr. Wigley: The Minister conceded yesterday that circumstances had encouraged farmers to develop dairy production. It is not good enough to blame the farmers for responding to pressures from all directions. There is now talk in Wales of blockades of tractors to express dissatisfaction with what is happening. That is a direct result of the corner into which farmers have been driven by the Government's settlement. The ridiculous thing is that we have not yet reached self-sufficiency in milk products in these islands. If there is a milk lake, why not make the cuts in areas that produce too much instead of hitting Wales at a time and in a way that will be so devastatingly hard to bear?
  The contrast with Ireland is stark. Ireland succeeded in achieving a special package. A good friend of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the MEP for North Wales, Miss Beata Brookes, is reported in the Western Mail as saying that she had sent telegrams of protest to the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister of Agriculture and the EEC agricultural Commissioner over milk. The report said that she was

  917
  "upset that concessions had been made to Irish dairy producers without equal consideration for those in Wales."
  Concessions were made because the Irish had a voice in the negotiations. Where was the voice of Wales in those negotiations. Where was the voice of Wales in the Council of Ministers to defend the interests of dairy farming in Wales, which is as vital to Wales as it is to Ireland? The Irish had a voice; we did not. They have 15 MEPs; we have four, although the size of our populations is identical. When the chips are down and negotiations take place, because we do not have a voice, our farmers suffer. They will go out of business as a result. The lesson is clear for the people of Wales.
  An editorial in The Irish Times states:
  "The eleventh-hour agreement in Brussels, and the concession to Ireland, were a recognition of the Republic's national interest. There was an appreciation that the farming economy here differed widely from the rest of Europe, and that any serious alteration would be harmful to the whole economic fabric of the nation."
  The Irish nation has been considered. The Welsh nation has not. Absentee representatives do not put our interests high enough when the stakes are discussed.
  The loss of income to the rural areas not only involves the 10 per cent. loss to farmers. It has a spin-off effect through the countryside. In many rural areas of western Wales subsistance farming is the pattern. We are not talking about the fat pigs and cows of eastern England. We are talking about the economy of areas where shops and schools will close and buses will stop as a result of the cuts. The domino effect will travel throughout the Welsh countryside as a result of deliberate Government policy.
  We seek assurances. In the long term we need a change in EC economic policy and in the CAP structure, but immediately we need assurances that a longer transitional period will be allowed to permit dairy farmers to adjust. Quotas should not be set in a uniform manner. We must have flexibility so that quotas are applied on a farm-by-farm basis. We need a low-interest loan fund to help farmers in difficulty over this period.
  We also want an assurance that the Welsh Office, members of which have again been absent from the Chamber for this debate, will take a part in defending the interests of Welsh farmers. We want an assurance that the National Farmers Union of Wales has been, and will be, involved in negotiations.
  As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, the Minister let the cat out of the bag when he said that one compensation arising from recent negotiations, was the benefit that would go to the London financial centre. That is the lesson that comes home to Wales. Our national interest has been sold down the river for the benefit of the City of London.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. William Powell: Those of us who have sat through the past four hours of debate recognise that it has been of very high quality and that most of the important points have been discussed. I wish to concentrate on two matters, both of which go to the heart of our present relationship with Europe.
  The first concerns surpluses within the Community. With all the romantic connotations of his constituency, one might expect the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) to take a rather romantic attitude
  918
  to things. Alas, however, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) put the crucial question to him about how to dispose of surpluses, he was unable to answer. The hon. Gentleman asked for more time to adjust which inevitably means greater surpluses.
  Surpluses have to be disposed of and the cost of their disposal has become the cancer within the Community. There can be no ducking that. Impressive though their analysis was, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made one factual error. In fact, we are in surplus in dairy products.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Powell: Moreover, the surplus is increasing.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose——
  Mr. Powell: It is not so great as in some European countries, but we are in surplus.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Powell: No, I will not give way. We are in surplus in liquid milk.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose——
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is clearly not giving way. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) must not persist.
  Mr. Powell: Taking into account the butter that we have specially decided to import from New Zealand, we are also in surplus in butter fats. That surplus, too, is increasing. I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Overall, taking all dairy products into account, we are not in surplus. Although we are in surplus in some types of dairy product such as butter fat, in others we are in deficit. Overall, we are not in surplus in dairy products. That is a fact.
  Mr. Powell: The Minister has said that our dairy produce is 108 per cent. of our requirements and rising. That suggests to me that we are in surplus, even including the New Zealand element which is also important. In any event, we are part of one common market. We cannot belong to a common market and then ignore its existence. That must be taken into account, as well as our domestic situation.
  The real tragedy of farming policy in the Community is that it does not provide the one thing that it was supposed to provide for farmers—an income comparable with that which can be earned in urban surroundings—because 60 per cent. of the cost of the CAP is spent on the storage and disposal of surpluses. Therefore, there can be no solution to our problems in the Community until we can solve the problem of surpluses. Those who fail to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East put to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber about how to dispose of the surpluses must therefore concede that that question cannot be avoided.
  Unfortunately, I detect that there are still those who seek to pile surplus upon surplus. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and of the Minister of State, that they have tried mightily to come to

  919
  terms with the question of surpluses. They have not totally succeeded. We still have a large surplus. We may manage to dispose of some of it on world markets this year, but we may be left with quantities of dairy produce which we are unable to dispose of. We must devise policies which will permanently dispose of the problem. It is the cancer which is eating away at the budget side and the agricultural sector, and there is no avoiding it.
  To those who contemplate an increase in own resources, I have to say that if the purpose of increasing own resources is merely to allow greater flexibility on the agriculture budget, that will not solve the essential structural difficulty.
  The other main theme of the debate was introduced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He referred to the paradox which is central to our relationship with Europe. He talked of the incompatibility of our perceptions, our economies and our political and constitutional arrangements. In contrast, he talked of Europe as a crucible of humanity to which we are inextricably bound. How right he is. That paradox is central to our whole unhappy relationship with Europe.
  Over the years, we have pretended to a special relationship with the United States. We have an utterly necessary alliance with the United States, and relations between the leaders of both countries, of both parties, have been excellent. But our true special relationship is with Europe, although we have been unable to work it out satisfactorily. One of the tasks that my generation will face in the coming years and decades will be to try to establish a satisfactory relationship with the countries of mainland Europe — a relationship not bedevilled by the cancer growing in our midst.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will have the support of us all as they try to come to terms with those problems. It may take them longer than we would wish. There may be further depressing debates in this House as the date of the solution to the problems is postponed again, but the problems must be solved. We must all show patience if we are to achieve a solution which will enable us to develop the satisfactory relationship to which the right hon. Member for Down, South so tantalisingly alluded.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), said that it had become a convention in the House that anyone returning from Europe claimed to have achieved triumph and success. Any hon. Member who cares to look back over the many speeches that I made in the previous Parliament replying to debates on the Finance Bill will find that I could be thought to have adopted a convention of saying that the House had had an excellent debate. However, I am not merely making a conventional statement when I say that tonight's debate has been outstanding. There have been a number of first-class Back-Bench speeches which have contributed to the development of our thinking about Europe. It is a tribute to the quality of those speeches that for long periods there were very few interruptions from the Government Benches.
  However, I must make one partisan point. It is because we have had such a successful debate of a high standard
  920
  that one must place on record at the outset regret that the debate was shortened by half an hour by the frivolous and vexatious use of Divisions of the House by minority parties. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) said that we should try to pursue the negotiations in a spirit of good will. I understand what the hon. Gentleman meant. It is true that the other Prime Ministers who emerged from the closet in which they were held with our Prime Minister did not appear to have been impressed by the rationality and powerful logic of the British case, nor convinced by the sweet reasonableness with which it was put forward.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the way in which the negotiations were pursued, but if he and his colleagues from the alliance parties wish to pursue what I understand to be their grievance about the allocation of time, it would be much better done in ways that did not detract from our opportunity to debate the future of Europe and to hear serious speeches such as those that we have heard since we completed that series of Divisions.
  I must also tell the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that it would be of interest to Labour Members if he were to inquire of his colleagues in the SDP where they have been this evening. This is the third debate on European affairs in the House since the turn of the year, and SDP Members have completed a hat trick of not contributing to any debate, nor even of being present for most of them. It calls in question the rhetoric of those SDP Members who are fond of saying that they, and they alone, hold the key to the vision and the ideal of the future of Europe.
  One striking feature of the debate has been the lack of support from either side of the House for the package that looks like emerging from the negotiations in which Ministers have been engaged. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), from the sedentary position which he has maintained all evening, says that that is not true—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I understand that it was not the hon. Member for Wirral, South who said that. However, of those Conservative Members who managed to raise themselves into a standing position, only the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) could be described as supporting the package. From all other quarters there has been criticism.
  I say that not in a partisan sense. Two of the outstanding speeches of the debate came from Conservative Members —the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) —both of whom deployed devastating arguments against any increase in own resources. I hope that I will not cast a permanent shadow on the prospects of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire if I say that he made an excellent and refreshing speech. My only criticism of his speech is that at the end he made a completely convincing case against an increase in own resources and then said that he had an open mind on the matter. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read his speech in Hansard tomorrow and then to recognise that, in the light of his speech, he cannot escape the logic of his position. He is obliged not to have an open mind but to oppose an increase in own resources.
  The hon. Member for Wells deployed the case for Britain with great reasonableness and lucidity. I am tempted to speculate—this will probably cast not just a shadow but a positive pall over the hon. Gentleman's prospects—to what extent the British case might have

  921
  been advanced in negotiations had it been maintained with the clarity and rationality which the hon. Gentleman showed in his speech.
  There is a clear gulf between the approach of those hon. Members and that of Ministers. Both hon. Members and several others who have spoken in the debate have considered the case for an increase in own resources on its merits; having done so, they were driven to the inevitable conclusion that there is no case for increasing EC own resources. However, Ministers have now trapped themselves in the position that they no longer regard the increase in own resources as a matter to be judged on its merits, but as a bargaining chip to be surrendered in exchange for concessions. We heard of a further concession which is now being entered against that bargaining chip which makes it more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to withhold the bargaining chip, namely, the British refund for 1983.
  This is a new development. Hitherto we have been assured that if the rebate was not paid by the deadline of 31 March — a deadline chosen by the Government themselves—then action would be taken to safeguard the British position. Those were the words that were used several times in the period up to 31 March. It is barely a month since the Foreign Secretary chided me for suggesting that there was no realistic possibility of the rebate being paid by the deadline. I take it that the Foreign Secretary will not dispute the issue with me now. The deadline is past and the rebate has not been paid. We can all agree on that and that is common ground between the Front Benches.
  There is not even a promissory note that the rebate will be paid. There is no guarantee that even at Fontainebleau they will obtain the rebate. Yet a curious change has occurred in the rhetoric. During the period in which the Foreign Secretary was assuring us that there was a realistic possibility that the deadline would be met, the air was heavy with threats of swift and sever vengence if the deadline was not met. Now the deadline has passed and these threats of vengeance have evaporated.
  I remember distinctly the appearance of the Prime Minister when she returned from Brussels. She came to the House and gave us one of those magnificent impersonations of Boadicea rampant. She assured us not just once but three times that action would be taken to safeguard the British position if the deadline was not met. In case anybody was in any doubt about what she meant, she spelt out previous occasions on which member states had withheld contributions to the EC.
  The next day there was a sudden pax in that position. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and a few confreres appeared to have succeeded in unhitching the chariot of Boadicea. Unforeseen, unanticipated treaty obligations were discovered. There were legal and diplomatic complexities which no one had thought of explaining to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when they were threatening to safeguard the British position. All of a sudden the deadline has passed and we find that no action is to be taken on the failure of the EC to pay our rebate by the deadline.
  The House will be aware that the view of the Opposition is that we should withhold contributions up to the amount represented by the rebate which has not been paid to us and to which we are entitled. Let me say in a spirit of
  922
  conciliation and in the non-partisan mood that has marked much of the debate that I recognise that there is an alternative case, argued eloquently by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, that such an action would merely raise temperatures and exacerbate the situation.
  I must point out that the Government have chosen the worst of all possible worlds by threatening to withhold if the deadline was not met and then backing off from the threat. They have put themselves in the position which is the classic failure of any negotiator: they have bluffed, and their bluff has been called and it has been seen to be empty. For that reason when they return to the negotiations they will find their position weakened.
  Now we are told that they will not withhold contributions but that they will not agree to an increase in own resources until the rebate is paid. The bargaining chip of increasing own resources becomes weakened by having yet another concession attached to it.
  I listened with great care to the Foreign Secretary's speech. I noticed that at no time during the half hour for which he addressed the House did he attempt to make the case for an increase in own resources on its merits. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) is to reply to the debate. It was he who in the House in February 1983 said that no such case could be advanced with conviction. When he replies, I ask him to address his mind to the merits of an increase in own resources, irrespective of its utility as a bargaining chip.
  The sums involved are large. For 1986, the Government have accepted, subject to agreement and budgetary balance, an increase to 1·4 per cent., an increase of 40 per cent. at the present VAT level. That represents an increase of £675 million per annum. They have accepted in principle after that a target increase to 1·6 per cent., a 60 per cent. increase. That represents an increase per annum of £1 billion. President Gaston Thorn has described those increases as unacceptable, and many hon. Members will agree with that description, except that President Gaston Thorn regards them as unacceptable because they are not big enough. He wants to see an immediate increase to 2 per cent.
  He has shown great moderation because I understand that the extreme position of the Liberal party is to increase own resources not just to 2 per cent. but—if the detail of the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber has been correctly reported to me — to something over 2 per cent. , which would represent over one fifth of the total tax take from VAT in the British isles.
  I strongly urge the hon. Member to make sure when he stands in the European elections that he figures prominently in his election address that commitment to double the VAT paid by his electors to Brussels. If he does not, we have ways to ensure that his electorate gets to hear about it.
  Mr. Johnston: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. He will perhaps concede that when I said that an increase of that order was desirable, it was to make possible an increased research programme, an increased regional programme directed at jobs and an increased social programme directed at helping ageing industries.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is calling on us to double our VAT payments. The question that will be asked by his electors in the Highlands and Islands is what

  923
  evidence there is from the experience of the EEC that if we doubled our payments, that would result in a doubling of the regional and social funds rather than a doubling of expenditure on agriculture.
  Sir Anthony Meyer rose——
  Mr. Cook: I will not give way. I agreed to curtail my remarks to allow another hon. Member to speak in the debate.
  The size of the figures are such that they exceed the sums being debated as the refund for the British budget contribution; £675 million in 1986, which is more than the £600 million offered by Chancellor Kohl at the summit, and £1 billion thereafter, more than the £737 million, which represents the top demand by the British Government. In other words, we are being asked to strike a very odd bargain indeed. To get our refund, we shall agree to increase payments by more than the refund that we were to get when we agreed to increase own resources.
  From where will that money come? The hon. Member for Wells made the pertinent point that we live under a Government—of which we on these Benches are well aware — who are committed to cutting public expenditure and taxation. There is no provision in the public expenditure White Paper for this increase, so what further cuts in domestic public expenditure or what widening of the tax base do the Government propose to raise this money, now that they have brought within the VAT net the fish and chips and do-it-yourself joinery shops of the nation?
  If we are to be confronted with such a widening of the tax base or a further cut in domestic expenditure to make room for this additional payment to Brussels, we shall have to look very hard indeed at the bargain that we obtained with this bargaining chip.
  That brings us to the heart of many speeches made tonight — the agricultural settlement reached over the weekend. We have been assured by the Government that effective control of Community expenditure, particularly agricultural expenditure, is one of the conditions that they will extract for this precious bargaining chip.
  We have before us the agricultural settlement of last weekend. There is one outstanding feature of the settlement. It is that it will not result in a reduction in expenditure. It will not even stabilise expenditure. It will result in an additional increase in expenditure. I asked the Foreign Secretary how much it would be. He replied by saying that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had told us yesterday. I am sorry to say that he was mistaken about that. The Minister said yesterday:
  "With regard to the cost of the package, the same position arises every year. One can never tell what it will be, because one does not know what will be the amount of money needed to implement the intervention prices. The hon. Gentleman should know that that can never be quantified."[Official Report, 2 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 672.]
  That statement does not smack of firm budget discipline. There is no effective control of expenditure embodied in that statement by the Minister only yesterday.
  However, the House is fortunate in that there are other commentators who will put a price on the package. For instance, there is the Commissioner for agriculture, Mr. Poul Dalsager. He has stated that the additional cost of the settlement at the weekend will be £500 million per annum over and above the estimate provided for agriculture expenditure. Mr. Dalsager is the man who complained a couple of months ago that some Governments seem to
  924
  think that reforming the CAP is a matter of ordering smaller oysters and a cheaper brand of champagne, and the Agriculture Council responded, to his irritation, by ordering larger oysters and a more expensive brand of champagne.
  Moreover, that increase of £500 million comes on top of an agriculture budget that is already overspent. President Gaston Thorn said a fortnight before the weekend settlement that even without an additional increase in expenditure, the agriculture budget would be overspent by £900 million to £1,200 million. Let us add to that the £500 million cast away last Saturday and Sunday. We are left with an overspend of £1,500 million to £2,000 million, on a budget that started with a base of less than £10,000 million. If such an increase represents the Foreign Secretary's understanding of the effective control of expenditure, I can well understand why, having achieved that effective control of expenditure, it is necessary for him to agree to an increase in own resources to pay for it.
  The remarkable feature about the increase is that the Agriculture Council arrived at the settlement when, by common consent, the EEC is going bankrupt. What firmer budget discipline could we hope to impose upon the Agriculture Ministers than the fact that if they do not agree to contain prices, the cheques will bounce at the bank some time in the summer or autumn? Yet they still come up with a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. increase.
  The Foreign Secretary said that that increase represented a start in controlling expenditure on the CAP; that it was a first step towards effective control. However, he also said that we have a long way to go. I am sure that every hon. Member will agree with him on this point, if on nothing else—we have a long way to go from the package to effective control.
  That being so, it is surely logical for the House to wait until we arrive at the point to which there is a long way to go before we agree to any increase in own resources that will relax the discipline imposed on Agriculture Ministers last week.
  Mr. Jackson: I know that the hon. Member likes to rise above vulgar detail, but perhaps he might like to recognise that a large part of these additional costs comes from changes in the MCA system of the kind for which he has been pressing, revaluations of the green currencies.
  Mr. Cook: Unfortunately, that is precisely not the change for which I have been pressing. Everybody else is going to change their MCA but in Great Britain there will not be a revaluation of the kind that we have requested. The 5 per cent. tax on food prices will remain in Britain but nowhere else.
  I conclude this passage on agriculture by quoting the words of the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will not accuse me of partiality if I quote what their own Minister has said. As the negotiations were proceeding, the Minister made a statement that is worth repeating and putting in the record. He said,
  "We must continue to live within our means."
  He added—and hon. Members will recall that this came before the summit in Brussels—
  "But if the Summit were to tell us that more money was available, that would be different."
  In those two short sentences the Minister of Agriculture summed up with a brilliant succinctness the case against

  925
  agreeing to an increase in own resources. If it is the case that the situation will be different if we gave them more money, surely that points more compellingly than any other argument against increasing own resources until we have demonstrated that we have arrived at the effective control of expenditure that, the Foreign Secretary agrees, we have still a long way to go to reach.
  We are at the moment debating the outcome of the third summit in just under a year. The first summit managed to agree an agenda for the next two summits. The last two summits have been unable to agree even on an agenda for the subsequent summit. There is a record of failure over the past nine months.
  What is particularly disappointing about that failure is that the crisis in the Community is also an opportunity, an opportunity to secure the fundamental reform that, all too plainly, the Community needs, an opportunity to find the new sense of direction that, all too plainly, the Community has lost. That opportunity is now being frittered away. It is quite clear that, whatever fudge emerges at Fontainebleau, or between now and Fontainebleau, it will not include any fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. It will not include any increased expenditure on the regional and social funds; indeed, we may well find over the next few months those funds curtailed in order to provide additional expenditure on the rollercoaster of agriculture. That new direction will not include any new initiative to tackle the problem of mass unemployment throughout Europe because three times——
  Mr. Porter: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way. I am concluding my remarks in order to let the Minister reply.
  Three times the Prime Ministers of Europe have met and on none of those occasions have they produced a single constructive, positive idea to reduce unemployment in their countries.
  One thing is quite clear. When that fudge emerges, although none of these fundamental changes will be included in it, it will include a requirement on Britain to pay even more to the EEC, in order that it may go on as before, spending that money on an agricultural policy that has never suited the British consumer and which, we learn from Members on the Government Benches, now does not suit the British farmer either.
  The Government Front Bench have failed. They know that they have failed. We can tell that they know that they have failed by the timid refuge that they have sought tonight behind the motion on the Adjournment of the House. Those on the Government Benches know that we pressed them to put down a substantive motion to which we could propose an amendment that would argue our case, in order that the House might come to a considered and reasoned view. They have avoided the pressure. They have offered us only a motion——
  Mr. Porter: Rubbish.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish". I would invite him to look at the Order Paper. If he does so, he will find that the House is debating tonight merely a motion to adjourn the House.
  If we are to be faced only with the miserable device of an Adjournment motion, and that is to be the only way that
  926
  we can express our view, we shall divide the House. We do so not so that the House may adjourn, but so that we can record our dissatisfaction at the Government's failure to reach an agreement that safeguards British interests, our condemnation of their retreat from withholding, and our determination that out of this failure there shall not arise any projects by which the Government may come to the House and suggest that there should be an increase of own resources to Brussels, to be paid by the British people.
  11.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) concluded his speech with a rousing condemnation of the Government for not allowing an Opposition amendment to be put down on which they could have expressed their views and divided the House. He has a nerve to suggest that the Government could be condemned on that basis. In the past two debates that the House has had on the European Community, the Opposition have put down amendments in both cases. On the first occasion, the amendment called on the House to reject any suggestion of an increase in own resources. When the House came to vote, the amendment was defeated by over 300 votes to approximately 60. Where all the Labour Members were, and why they had failed to come to express their view, the House has never had the benefit of knowing. On the last occasion that the House debated the Community, the hon. Gentleman again put down an amendment, calling on the Government to withhold our contributions to the European Community if the refunds were not paid, and that was in advance of there being a threat that that would happen. When that debate ended, the hon. Gentleman did not even divide the House.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. The quality of the contributions from the Back Benches has been very high. I also agree with his rebuke to the SDP. Its members have failed to be present during the debate. It is a party that, although small, contains not only a former Foreign Secretary but a former President of the Commission, but in the past three debates neither of them made any attempt to contribute their views, and those of their party, on one of the most crucial issues before the United Kingdom. That shows an extraordinary negation of duty and of their responsibilities. Even the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) does not jump to the defence of the party.
  There has been a wide spectrum of contributions to the debate. The House listened carefully, as it always does, to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He expressed the view, which the House received in a thoughtful fashion, that, while there was no basic incompatibility between Britain and Europe in the geographical and historical context, there was, nevertheless, a fundamental incompatibility between Britain and the EC. I listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, although this is a view that he has expressed often before. However, his proposal that there is something that cannot be remedied in the relationship between Britain and the Community and that that shows a basic incompatibility, cannot be sustained.
  Perhaps the most important explanation of why in the 10 years since our membership there have been successive negotiations, and attempts to change the way that the Community operates from the point of view of the United Kingdom, is not because of a basic incompatibility in the

  927
  concept of the Community, but arises out of the fact that we were not a member of the Community when it first began, and were not present when the present system of own resources was negotiated.
  One of our fundamental problems has been that of trying to change the rules and regulations of a Community of which we could have been a founder member—an opportunity of which, for various reasons, we chose not to take advantage. One cannot help but recollect the remark made by Alfonso, a medieval king of Spain: "If I had been present at the creation, I would have had some useful hints for the better organisation of the universe." That is a view which could equally be expressed by those countries that have joined the Community since its inception.
  The hon. Member for Livingston and his hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—
  Mr. Porter: It is not for me to explain the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). As I understood it. he was trying to be helpful to the Government by indicating that, in his view, the arrangement reached between the agriculture Ministers was a fundamental shift which had occurred as a result of the persistence of the Prime Minister, and he was offering a new view from his new position in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my right hon. Friend is misunderstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Rifkind: No, I freely acknowledge that with much of what the right hon. Member for Down, South said I happily agreed, and I shared his interpretation. The remarks I was making related to the suggested incompatibility of Britain with the European Community; that is a point that the right hon. Gentleman has held all along with complete consistency from the beginning of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Livingston, on several occasions, I am bound to say, has sought to misinform and mislead the House. Only last week he waxed indignant when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that the United Kingdom was going to refuse to pay an advance of £100 million demanded by the Commission. The hon. Gentleman, with great indignation, said that that was a worthless gesture, because the sum that the United Kingdom was declining to pay would in any event, according to him, fall due a few days later, last Sunday, on 1 April. I can only advise him that, in future, when that date, of all dates, is recommended to him, he should treat it with special caution; because he was wrong on that occasion, and in a substantial way.
  Not only would the sum have fallen due in some three weeks' time, but the action of my right and learned Friend and of the Government was fully vindicated two days later when the Commission withdrew the application for an advance, not only from the United Kingdom, but from other member states of the Community. Having sought to mislead the House only last week, the hon. Gentleman might have done the House the service to which it is entitled, and apologised for the misinformation that he gave on that occasion.
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister has made a point which is perfectly correct, in that I understood that it was an advance payment of VAT, paid not on 1 April, which I did not say, but on 2 April. It was intended to be an
  928
  advance payment of a customs levy due on 20 April. fully concede that the Foreign Secretary was standing up firmly, resolutely and determinedly for a full fortnight, which I had not allowed for in my calculation. If the Minister seeks to suggest that that was a worthwhile, and not a worthless, gesture, he will surely recognise that on Friday last week the Commission announced that it did not need our money anyway, so who was impressed by our withholding it?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has spent some time admitting that he was wrong last week. It is a pity that he could not have admitted that he misled the House in his own speech, rather than having to have it drawn out of him like a tooth that needs to be extracted.
  His hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), who wound up in the last debate on the European Community, also sought on that occasion to create an atmosphere of doom and despondency within the House. She made a prediction then that the Government were going to make some sort of soggy compromise at the Brussels summit. When the Government showed that they were standing absolutely firm by the national interest, she and her hon. Friends turned to accusing the Government of intransigence and rigidity. I am bound to say that to expect objectivity from the Labour party on our European Community negotiations would be like expecting a cannibal to be objective in a lecture on vegetarianism.
  Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister assist the House and the country by answering two questions? First, when will we obtain our rebate; and, secondly, what compensation, if any, will be paid to farmers in my constituency who will have to slaughter their cows?
  Mr. Rifkind: Those are somewhat different questions, and I shall come to them later if I can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no dispute about our entitlement to a refund—it is the date of payment that is in dispute.
  The Leader of the Opposition, who I am glad to see in his place, when he spoke after the Brussels summit and sought to interrogate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, made the most astonishing suggestion. He said:
  "Is it not the case that, nearly nine months after the Stuttgart summit, the Prime Minister is now even further away from securing agreements to end the injustice of the British budget deficit". — [Official Report, 21 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 1050.]
  I do not know whether that question was drafted for him by the hon. Member for Livingston or whether it was the product of the right hon. Gentleman's fevered imagination. All that I can say is that he was gloriously and outrageously wrong. If he does not believe me, he need only ask the Prime Minister or Head of Government of any other member state. If the right hon. Gentleman needs to be educated, I am happy to respond to that request. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends exactly what the Government have achieved in the nine months since Stuttgart.
  As an aperitif, I shall comment on the achievements of the Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We must have a proper basis of comparison. During five years of Labour Government, there was much sound and fury, that produced nothing. Not only did the Labour Government alienate every one of our Community partners; they did not return with a single, solitary ecu of refund for the United Kingdom; nor did they achieve a single, solitary reform of the budgetary system.

  929
  Let us compare that with what the Government have already achieved on the budget deficit since the Stuttgart summit. First, the Community has now agreed quite unanimously that it is necessary for the future that the burden of supporting the Community's expenditure should take into account the relative prosperity of member states. That principle was not accepted until after the Stuttgart summit. It was the first achievement that the Government can claim. The second achievement that we can legitimately claim is that there is now unanimous acceptance that solution to the budgetary problem must not rely on annual haggles and crises, but that there should be a lasting system that, in a proper and acceptable way, will meet the United Kingdom's requirements.
  The third achievement is the unanimous acceptance by all the member states that in future the proper way to deal with the British budget problem is not by finding new artificial forms of expenditure, but by reducing the contributions of the United Kingdom to the Community's finances. That is the third achievement that this Government have to their credit.
  The fourth achievement is agreement by our colleagues in the Community that, in devising a system for the future, a Community not of 10 but of 12 should be taken into account, in order to anticipate the consequences of the enlargement of the Community. The fifth achievement is an agreement on the sum that is to be paid to the United Kingdom, which has now been narrowed to a gap of only 250 million ecu.
  If the Leader of the Opposition does not believe that all that adds up to the most dramatic progress that has been achieved in many years in the resolution of the United Kingdom budgetary problem, I can only say that his understanding of logic explains why he considers that his total climb-down and abject surrender on the Elgin marbles should be considered a triumph of negotiating skill.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many ecus net were paid into the budget in the last five years of the Labour Government and how many ecus have been paid into the budget in the five years of his Government?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Britain's net unadjusted contribution has continued to increase since our membership began. What the Labour Government tried to do was to negotiate a formula that would rectify that situation. They in fact negotiated a formula that had not the slightest effect on our budgetary burden.
  Mr. Marlow: Now that we have finished with the history, could my hon. Friend concentrate on answering the very important question asked by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and several other hon. Members during this debate? What justification, if any, can there be for an increase in own resources, and what will the money be spent on? Every hon. Member who has spoken this evening thinks that the only thing the money can be spent on is agriculture.
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the question of an increase in own resources need be addressed if, and only if, there is agreement on the two
  930
  fundamental questions that the Community is addressing at the present time. One is the control of agricultural expenditure and the other is an acceptable solution to the British budgetary problem. The arguments that have been used in support of an increase in own resources, as I am sure my hon. Friend must know, include the enlargement of the Community; any increase in the regional and social funds—the Government have said that they are prepared to support some increase in the regional and social funds — and new policies of a kind similar to ESPRIT, although ESPRIT itself has already been covered.
  Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend please explain exactly what is required to improve the agricultural side of the deal so as to make acceptable conditions that would give rise to an application to this House for an increase in own resources?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be aware that so far the Community has agreed, first, on the principle that finance should determine expenditure—a principle first enunciated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in his speech in The Hague some years ago. That is now unanimously agreed. Secondly, it has been accepted that guidelines must be laid down both for agricultural expenditure and for total expenditure, and it is agreed that the Community and the Commission should bring forward specific proposals to turn these principles into firm budgetary procedures that will control the expenditure of the Community. That is the essential requirement as the Government see it.
  The hon. Member for Livingston and his right hon. and hon. Friends have been asked on a number of occasions to indicate what their policy is on the development of the Community. They have been reluctant to do so, but we have had a document produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and published in New Socialist in which he outlines his vision of the future of Europe. I may say that it conflicts on a number of material points with a speech made by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at the Dorchester Hotel on 28 February. It may be significant that the Leader of the Opposition expresses his views in New Socialist while the deputy Leader of the Opposition expresses his views in a speech at the Financial Times conference. There are interesting contrasts between the two.
  The Leader of the Opposition says that we must preserve our right to withdraw from the Community. The deputy Leader of the Opposition says that it would be
  "deeply against our interests to withdraw."
  Which is correct? The Leader of the Opposition states that the CAP "is intolerable" and has to be replaced. The deputy Leader of the Opposition states:
  "I am not suggesting that the CAP can be abandoned.…Nor can we guarantee and support farm incomes by the subsidy system that proved so expensive in pre-EEC Britain."
  Who speaks for the Labour party, and what is the policy that that party is putting to the British people?
  In his interesting article the Leader of the Opposition states that, from within the Community, if the Socialist countries co-ordinate their economic reflation,
  "We have to acknowledge the right of a country which pursues policies for full employment to protect itself against the effects of policies in other countries which do not."
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to recreate the industrial tariff barriers, the pulling down of which was one of the Community's finest achievements.

  931
  The most dramatic and absurd proposal that appears in the right hon. Gentleman's document concerns the future of the Community. The right hon. Gentleman has entitled his appeal to the nation as a call for a "new Messina". We all recall that the original Messina conference laid down the essential foundations of the European Community. The right hon. Gentleman's document calls for the destruction of the European Parliament, a destruction of the common agricultural policy and a destruction of a free market in industrial goods. If the right hon. Gentleman is addicted to Italian symbolism, the "new Vesuvius" would be a better description of his vision.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in the context of reform of the EC, calls for the House and the country to take account of countries in western Europe that are not within the Community and for the Community to take into account its relationship with the countries of eastern Europe, including those of the Warsaw Pact. He ends by calling for the abolition of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the European Council of Community Heads of Government and the replacement of those institutions by full European councils, all-European assemblies and all-European gatherings.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Nonsense.
  Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is nonsense. It is his document and if he wishes to describe it so, I shall not disagree with him.
  Mr. Kinnock: Read it properly.
  Mr. Rifkind: I have read it properly. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he makes no distinction at all in the document between the various parts of Europe. He refers to the need for all European parties — he includes eastern Europe as well as western Europe—to send delegates to institutions he wishes to create. This is an intolerable policy.
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will be aware that the House is debating the summit in Brussels. He appears to be labouring under the illusion that the Labour party was a party to that summit. He has now but two and a half minutes left in which to reply to the debate. Will he now address his mind to what case there may be on its merits for increasing own resources, whether a settlement that increases agricultural spending represents effective control of expenditure and where the extra £2,000 million will be found to pay for the outcome of the settlement?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I spent the first half of my speech setting out the Government's unprecedented achievements in obtaining a fair budget solution to Britain's budgetary problems. The Government have already shown their determination to ensure that there will be no increase in own resources unless there is a satisfactory solution to the other matters to which I have referred. If the negotiating strength of Labour Members is to say to our Community partners, "We wish everything from you and we are not prepared to consider giving anything in return," that explains why the previous Labour Government's economic policy was a complete failure and why that Administration would have continued to fail.
  I have no doubt that the negotiations that are now being conducted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will lead to a fair settlement for the United Kingdom,
  932
  which will enable the Community to develop on a sound and prosperous basis. It is on that assumption and in that belief that, if the Opposition wish to divide the House, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to show their support for Her Majesty's Government.
  Question put, That this House do now adjourn:
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 253.

  Division No. 224]

  [11.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Foster, Derek

  Alton, David

  Foulkes, George

  Anderson, Donald

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Ashton, Joe

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Freud, Clement

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Garrett, W. E,

  Barnett, Guy

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Beith, A. J.

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hardy, Peter

  Benn, Tony

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Blair, Anthony

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Boyes, Roland

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Howell, Rt Hon D, (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  John, Brynmor

  Canavan, Dennis

  Johnston, Russell

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clarke, Thomas

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Clay, Robert

  Lambie, David

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Lamond, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Coleman, Donald

  Leighton, Ronald

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Edward

  Cowans, Harry

  McCartney, Hugh

  Craigen, J. M.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Crowther, Stan

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  McTaggart, Robert

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

  McWilliam, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Madden, Max

  Dewar, Donald

  Marek, Dr John

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dormand, Jack

  Martin, Michael

  Douglas, Dick

  Maxton, John

  Dubs, Alfred

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Meacher, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Michie, William

  Ellis, Raymond

  Mikardo, Ian

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Ewing, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Nellist, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  O'Brien, William

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Flannery, Martin

  Parry, Robert

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Patchett, Terry

  Forrester, John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  933

  Penhaligon, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Pike, Peter

  Strang, Gavin

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Straw, Jack

  Prescott, John

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Randall, Stuart

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Redmond, M.

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Tinn, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Torney, Tom

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Welsh, Michael

  Ryman, John

  White, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilson, Gordon

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Winnick, David

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

  Woodall, Alec

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. John Home Robertson.

  Spearing, Nigel

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Cope, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Corrie, John

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Ancram, Michael

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Arnold, Tom

  Critchley, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Crouch, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Dunn, Robert

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Durant, Tony

  Baldry, Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Batiste, Spencer

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fallon, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Farr, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fox, Marcus

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gale, Roger

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Galley, Roy

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brinton, Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Greenway, Harry

  Budgen, Nick

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

  Burt, Alistair

  Grist, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heddle, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hirst, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Conway, Derek

  Jackson, Robert

  934

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Knowles, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lamont, Norman

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lester, Jim

  Ryder, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lilley, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lord, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, John

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spencer, Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Antony

  Squire, Robin

  Mather, Carol

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Steen, Anthony

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Stokes, John

  Moate, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sumberg, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Moore, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mudd, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Waddington, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Normanton, Tom

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Norris, Steven

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Waller, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Parris, Matthew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Watson, John

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wheeler, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Whitfield, John

  Porter, Barry

  Whitney, Raymond

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Powley, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raffan, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ronton, Tim

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Farming Incomes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  12.12 am
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that I shall not be accused of tedious repetition if I raise again the question of the EEC review and its effect upon farming incomes. When, five weeks ago, I first entered your ballot, Mr. Speaker, in order to raise on the Adjournment of the House the subject of the decline of farming incomes, I did not know that the impending EEC price review would deal such a blow to the expectations of the coming year's farming incomes in the dairy sector. I wish to speak mainly about that sector, because most of the farmers in my constituency are dairy farmers. I hope that I shall have time to refer to that blow, because this most recent development greatly aggravates the problem of farming incomes.
  I chose this subject for debate because for years people in my constituency have been saying — doubtless because they believe it to be so—that all farmers are making money hand over fist, or that farmers are always moaning about their profits, but that every farmer drives a big Mercedes—or perhaps a big Rolls-Royce, though never a Rover or a Granada. People say that they have never seen a poor farmer. Recently they have added that the subsidised farmers do not know what economic recession is, and that all they do it mess up the countryside, pull down the hedges, burn stubble so that smoke blows all over the motorways and moan all the way to the bank.
  No doubt there are some farmers who fit that description, but there are many farmers—there are some in my constituency — who are poor. Some of them would have been going out of business even without the price review. I thought that the House might like to hear, or to read in the Official Report, about the declining income of a more or less typical dairy farmer in my constituency. I say typical, but he is one of the better-placed farmers. His farm is comparatively large, with 700 acres. Most of the farmers in Burton and Uttoxeter are much smaller and less well diversified, and therefore in greater difficulty.
  Let us call the farmer Mr. Brown, to preserve his anonymity. He is a good farmer—he has been a farmer for over 30 years — and he has never known such worrying financial figures. Last year his profit on an investment of £320,000 was £30,000. This year he expects a total deficit of £56,845, to be financed out of last year's profit.
  Let us examine the increase in his costs and then the decrease in farm prices. First, costs. During the past 12 months the cost of dairy cake has increased from £142 a tonne to £167 a tonne. His cows eat 432 tonnes, so the extra cost will be £10,800. However, the cost of barley fed to the cows has decreased by £12 a tonne, so the 200 tonnes that he uses will cost £2,400 less. The overall cost increase of dairy cake will be £8,400. The bought feed for the young stock has increased by £25 a tonne; they eat 120 tonnes a year, so the increased cost is £3,000. This year the cost of fertiliser has increased by £20 a tonne for the 140 tonnes used, which is an increase of £2,800.
  Last year Mr. Brown's seven workers accounted for £50,000; assuming a 5 per cent. increase this year, the
  936
  increase will be £2,500. There has just been a settlement of a 33 per cent. increase in the farm rent. That was arrived at by the landlord assuming a price increase of 11 per cent. a year during the past three years; at £30 to £40 an acre, the increase is £7,000. It looks as though there may be a 5 per cent. increase in the other overheads of rates, insurance, electricity, telephone, machinery, repairs, etc., which will be an additional cost of £2,000. In all, his costs will increase by £25,700.
  How will those increased costs be paid for? Out of increased prices? No, Sir. The likely price figures are as follows. The milk price is expected to average, he believed at the time, 0.5p a litre less than last year; 250 cows give 6,500 litres, which means a reduction of £8,125 in milk returns. Fifty cull cows, which are making £100 less in the market, down to £350, represent a reduction of £5,000. Fifty surplus heifers, which are worth £100 less at £550 a head, mean a reduction of £5,000. The herd produces 150 week-old calves which are sold in the local market, last year at £60 and this year at £30, which means a reduction of £4,500. The farm produces 350 tonnes of barley each year; last year it sold for £108 a tonne, but this year's price is quoted at £96 a tonne. That is another reduction of £4,200. Similarly, 270 tonnes of wheat, which was £114 a tonne, is now quoted at £98 a tonne, which means a further reduction of £4,320. In all, there will be a reduction of £31,145 in the prices that Mr. Brown can expect to receive.
  Is that not an appalling reduction in farm incomes? The reducion will be about £56,845 in one year, or £26,845 over two years if one takes into account Mr. Brown's profit. How long can farmers in such circumstances—my local NFU assures me that those figures are pretty general in our area—afford to stay in business? Perhaps in the past such a fanner did well, and perhaps farmers, being proud people, pretend that things are going well and put on a good face. But there is no arguing with such statistics. The image of the over-paid, over-subsidised, profit-ridden farmer is all too often, alas, just a myth.
  Will that picture improve with the new Community price agreement? First estimates are extremely worrying. A 0·6 per cent. reduction in money payment for milk, added to a likely increase in costs of 6 per cent., means a reduction in real income of about 7 per cent. This has been estimated as leading to a drop in production of about 10 per cent., with 5,000 British dairy farmers going out of production and the slaughter of 500,000 dairy cows.
  What I am not sure has got home to everyone, at present reeling from the blow of a sudden overnight quota restriction as well, after being encouraged especially by subsidies to over-invest and over-produce in the years leading to this one, is that the measures will save only £1,000 million of the £3,000 million overspend that is the problem with the surplus of milk production in the EC. The question is: will the other £2,000 million be cut and, if so, when? Can the milk producer expect further savage cuts next year, or the year after, or the year after that? In the meanwhile, since the EC Commission has had to concede the loss of certain payments it expected before the Irish arrangement, will there have to be a supplementary price review before next year, perhaps after 14 June? If my hon. Friend could give reassuring answers to those questions it would help to prevent the onset of dithering uncertainty that might well sound the death knell to intelligent investment in and planned production of dairy herds.

  937
  Even the dairy farmer knows that this settlement was not all bad and that my right hon. Friend put his heart into trying to secure a better deal for the British farmer. We have agreement, which is better than disagreement and uncertainty. From this agreement may come a speedier and more constructive reform of the whole EC budget, for the way is now clear to concentrate on that and that would be to the benefit of every taxpayer, including the farmer.
  The food and drink industry, which I also represent in my constituency, seems well pleased with the settlement, if the warm welcome accorded to the deal by the Food Manufacturers Federation is anything to go by. There have been such achievements as retaining the beef premium, albeit at a rate reduced by 20 per cent., the increase of 5p on wool which will help the sheep industry, the doubling of the suckler cow premium and particularly stopping the devaluation of the green pound. These are substantial benefits and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on them.
  Furthermore, because of our small farming community compared with, say, France we were having to pay more towards the CAP budget and more for the import of foodstuffs in which we were not in surplus. So, as The Guardian helpfully pointed out:
  "Both Mr. Jopling and Mrs. Thatcher deserve congratulation for keeping their eyes first and foremost on Britain's national rather then sectional farming interest."
  Nevertheless in the longer run the decline in farming incomes is unlikely to be all that good for the nation.
  Mr. David Maclean: I apologise for interrupting my hon. and learned Friend when he has been delivering such a strong case. Will he take it from me that unfortunately the case of Farmer Brown is by no means unique? I too have hundreds of farmers in similar circumstances. Has my hon. and learned Friend seen the table that was published in Hansard last week in response to a question that I put to the Minister, which gives frightening figures for those sectors of agriculture involved in the dairy industry, in cattle and sheep and in pigs and poultry? Has he seen that from a base of 100 in 1977–78 it is forecast that in the current year dairy farmers will be down to an index of 65, cattle and sheep farmers to an index of 64 and pig and poultry farmers to only 25? These are the percentages of what they were earning seven years ago.
  Mr. Lawrence: I have indeed seen those figures because my hon. Friend was good enough to show them to me in the Lobby before I came into the debate. They are appalling and should be sent to everybody who has anything to do with the farming industry to alert them to precisely the problems facing farmers.
  Mr. Matthew Parris: I have great sympathy for the notional Farmer Brown whom my hon. and learned Friend has described. Will he accept that, great as Farmer Brown's problems may be on 700 acres, he at least can diversify, but that Farmer Green in Monyash or Flagg, 35 miles north of my hon. and learned Friend's constituency, on 70 acres, who depends on dairying and for whom it would be difficult to diversify, is in an even more desperate situation?
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend's devotion to the cause of agriculture in Derbyshire, West is well known and
  938
  I have difficulty in keeping ahead of him in my concern for the farmers. To his Farmer Green I could add Fanners Black, White, Brown and practically any other name of farmer in my constituency, who suffers precisely that problem.
  Mr. David Lightbown indicated assent.
  Mr. Lawrence: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) nodding in agreement. I know that he, as a leading protagonist of farmers in Staffordshire, also has that sad and unhappy experience.
  Mr. Maclean: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite those different coloured farmers, it is still not a pretty picture?
  Mr. Lawrence: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that the time will not come when he sees any of his farmers having to feed thistles to their flocks.
  Farming is one of Britain's biggest employers. It has 625,000 workers, or 2·7 per cent. of the United Kingdom labour force. If farmers go out of business, there will be fewer jobs, not only in farming but in related industries such as farm machinery, fertilisers, food retailing and a thousand different jobs, which account for about 2·2 million of the working population, representing another 10 per cent. of the labour force.
  If farmers go out of business they will produce less and we will have to import more, with bad effects on the balance of payments and the price of food. Many people are concerned with ecology but the countryside would suffer without the conservation efforts of farmers. Fanning is one of Britain's most successful industries, not only because it employs so many people but because its record of improving food production and its success towards achieving self-sufficiency are considerable benefits to Britain. While the retail price index rose by 76 per cent. between 1977 and 1982, the price of food produced by our farmers rose by only 57 per cent. , well below the rise in the cost of living, and that is a proud record. Yet producers' prices rose by only 42 per cent., and there lies the problem.
  It is very much in the nation's interest that farming stays a successful industry. Can the Minister be more optimistic than Burton's dairy farmers are at present and say that it will continue to be a successful industry?
  12.27 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for raising a subject that is of considerable and understandable concern at present. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) for staying to play a small part or to listen to the debate, and I have noted carefully the points that my hon. and learned Friend and others have made.
  It may be helpful if, first, I put matters into a historical perspective. The industry has made great advances in recent decades, as can be seen from the White Papers which summarise the conclusions of the annual reviews during this period, and I shall return to that subject shortly.

  939
  Agriculture, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, is a major employer, with about 625,000 people directly engaged in farming and a similar number employed by ancillary industries. Agriculture has an excellent record of improved efficiency, technical innovation, high investment and good industrial relations. In the last 30 years, average cereals yields have increased from just above 2·5 tonnes to over 6 tonnes per hectare. In the same period, the milk yield per cow has risen by about one third.
  In the last 10 years we have increased our self-sufficiency in all foods from below 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., and for those foods which it is possible to produce in the United Kingdom the figure has increased by 15 per cent. to 76 per cent. That is a dramatic increase, and I recall telling the House 10 years ago that we imported half the food we ate and that that was very costly. That increase in our ability to produce our own food and that great improvement in our self-sufficiency represent a considerable contribution to the nation's balance of payments. The food share of our nation's total import bill has fallen from 40 per cent. in the 1960s to around 12 per cent. It has been said that, had it been possible for other industrial sectors to mirror that impressive performance, the economic state of our country would be very much better.
  It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that farm incomes have generally fallen in real terms during the past decade. That dramatic rise of 37 per cent. in 1982 was due mainly to the exceptional harvest of that year. I recall saying at the Dispatch Box that it might be a dramatic rise, but it still represented a lower income for the farmers than the figure in the 1970s. In 1983 incomes are forecast to stay above the level achieved in 1981, although still remaining in real terms below the levels of the mid-1970s.
  Those broad figures inevitably disguise significant variations in the incomes of various sectors of the industry. My hon. Friends will know that the arable sector has generally done much better than livestock, and the intensive livestock sector has fared particularly badly in recent years. They will know that during the price reviews in the past few years, particularly when we were subjected to being outvoted in Europe, we tried to secure a lower return on cereal prices because we feared what it would do to the balance with regard to the livestock sector of agriculture.
  My hon. Friends will be thinking particularly of their constituents, but they will know that it is difficult for me to judge between farms. Let us look at the annual review of agriculture for 1984 and at the figure for the notional farm. That is a wider figure than the figures for individual farms. The income for the notional farm in 1981—I said that we would be back at roughly the same figure—was £1,318 million. In 1982, after the dramatic increase due to the good harvest, it went up to £1,802 million. The forecast for 1983 was £1,536 million. Therefore, it is not as good as the year before, because that was an exceptional year—that point was made often in the Chamber. The 1983 figure is marginally above 1981, but in real terms, it is not as high as it was in the mid-1970s.
  On the other hand, the price of agricultural land has continued to rise, and there is a strong demand for agricultural tenancies. Investment during 1983 is forecast to show an increase of almost 5 per cent. in volume terms. Those factors are evidence of an underlying faith in the future of the industry by those engaged in it. I accept, however, that although the industry overall is in good
  940
  heart, the experiences of certain individual farmers may be rather different. My hon. and learned Friend is making exactly that point.
  Agriculture has come under fire from some quarters recently. In essence the argument seems to be that support should be withdrawn and that we should take advantage of the low food prices available on the world markets. But to do so would expose our consumers to fluctuating supplies and price instability while we would have destroyed one of our major industries. Also, if we became significantly more dependent on imports from world markets there is little doubt that prices would rise. In any event this view is quite uncompatible with membership of the EEC.
  None the less, there is quite reasonable and justified concern about the cost of agricultural support in the European Community and the burden that this places on the taxpayer. Agriculture has become a victim of its own success. The costs of intervention and disposal for surplus commodities have reached levels far beyond those that can be justified to the taxpayer. We have consistently and constantly emphasised to our Community partners the urgent need to tackle this problem. The cost of the CAP increased by more than 30 per cent. in 1983 to over £9,000 million. Clearly such increases are quite simply unacceptable and cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, until very recently the Community has refused to face up to the elementary fact that we cannot continue to generate additional surpluses of foodstuffs for which there is no market. Happily there is now a much greater awareness of what needs to be done but delays in facing up to the problem mean that the corresponding adjustments will be all the harder.
  It is plain both that some adjustments will have to be made to the CAP and that United Kingdom agriculture cannot be exempted from them. Some very important decisions have just been taken. My hon. and learned Friend is concerned. He says that now, at least, there is some certainty, but he is clearly concerned for his dairy farmers. This I understand.
  The recent agreement on a milk super levy is expected to cut back Community production by several million tonnes per annum. On the Commission's own figures, it costs some £160 million to dispose of each extra one million tonnes of production, since there is absolutely no market for it in the Community. Of course, the process of adjustment will regrettably prove painful for some of our own dairy farmers, but I am sure the industry has the resilience necessary to adapt successfully to the new circumstances. Hard decisions have also been taken for other commodities. For example, the common prices for most cereals have been cut by 1 per cent. , which represents a significant price decrease in real terms. Perhaps I should add that my officials in the agricultural development and advisory service are, of course, always willing to give farmers impartial advice on the ways in which the profitability of their holding might be sustained or improved. They are giving such good advice. The first thing that I would suggest that Mr. Brown and Mr. Green could perhaps do, in the way of assistance for themselves, is to ensure that they get that advice from our ADAS officers.
  My hon. and learned Friend was worried about what he still regards as an uncertain future. As for milk, it has been stated that the reduction in Europe will be down to the global figure of about 99 million tonnes this year and down

  941
  to 97·2 million tonnes next year. So, at least for the next two years, there is some certainty in the level of what I know, and what I have admitted, to be some hardship for the dairy industry. My hon. and learned Friend was kind enough to refer to some of the achievements that my right hon. Friend the Minister has secured in the price review, so I shall not reiterate them.
  Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend, who has given an interesting account of the current position, moves on, would she be good enough to comment on the second problem worrying my dairy farmers? They are concerned that there might be a supplementary review this year to make up for the shortfall on the money available to the Community as a result of having to pay out more in the review than it had budgeted for.
  Mrs. Fenner: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I see no evidence of that. There has been an extra imposition of 1 per cent. on the co-responsibility levy, which is intended to pay for reducing the milk output to 97·2 million tonnes over two years instead of doing it in one year. There is no sign of discussions on a supplementary levy.
  This Government will, within the framework of the CAP, continue to foster the viability of British agriculture. I am confident that the industry will respond to the challenge of the difficult times that lie ahead and I remain optimistic about the long-term future for British agriculture. I hope that my remarks have at least allayed the worst fears of my hon. and learned Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Mental Health Review Tribunals (Legal Aid)
  Mental Health Review Tribunals (Legal Aid)
ENERGY
  Subsidence Claims
  Subsidence Claims
  Fast Reactor Development
  Fast Reactor Development
  Oil Development
  Oil Development
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  EC Commission
  EC Commission
  Thames Barrage
  Thames Barrage
  North Atlantic Treaty (Anniversary)
  North Atlantic Treaty (Anniversary)
  Universities and Polytechnics
  Universities and Polytechnics
  War (Industrial Capacity)
  War (Industrial Capacity)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  NHS (Funds)
  NHS (Funds)
TRANSPORT
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Orange Badge Scheme
  M1 (Road Works)
  M1 (Road Works)
  Armitage Report (Recommendations)
  Armitage Report (Recommendations)
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Motor Cyclists (Training Scheme)
  Motor Cyclists (Training Scheme)
  Motor Cycle Test
  Motor Cycle Test
  South Woodford-Barking Relief Road
  South Woodford-Barking Relief Road
  Trunk Roads (Map)
  Trunk Roads (Map)
  Footways and Verges (Vehicle Crossings)
  Footways and Verges (Vehicle Crossings)
  Roade (Bypass)
  Roade (Bypass)
  M74–A74 (Nuclear Fuel)
  M74–A74 (Nuclear Fuel)
  A38 (Improvement)
  A38 (Improvement)
  Coastguard Rescue Sub-centre (The Needles)
  Coastguard Rescue Sub-centre (The Needles)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Film Censorship
  Film Censorship
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Lion Intoximeter 3000
  Lion Intoximeter 3000
WALES
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  Amniocentesis
  Amniocentesis
  Montgomery Canal
  Montgomery Canal
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  EC (Budget)
  EC (Budget)
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Privatisation (Fees and Commissions)
  Privatisation (Fees and Commissions)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Manufactures (Imports and Exports)
  Manufactures (Imports and Exports)
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  North-West Region (Steering Location Inquiries)
  North-West Region (Steering Location Inquiries)
  United States and Japan (Inward Investment)
  United States and Japan (Inward Investment)
  British Technology Group
  British Technology Group
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
  Sheffield Forgemasters
  Sheffield Forgemasters
  Scott Lithgow
  Scott Lithgow
  Britoil Contract
  Britoil Contract
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Staff
  Staff
ENVIRONMENT
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessment
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessment
  Local Authority Houses (Subsidies)
  Local Authority Houses (Subsidies)
  Local Authorities (Employment)
  Local Authorities (Employment)
  Main Frame Computers
  Main Frame Computers
  Building Alterations (Value Added Tax)
  Building Alterations (Value Added Tax)
  Recycling Schemes
  Recycling Schemes
  Rural Conservation
  Rural Conservation
  Flooding (Wakefield)
  Flooding (Wakefield)
  London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  Compulsory Purchase Act 1974
  Compulsory Purchase Act 1974
  Dolphin and Killer Whales
  Dolphin and Killer Whales
  Rating Relief
  Rating Relief
  Hemerdon Mine
  Hemerdon Mine
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Flooding (Wakefield)
  Flooding (Wakefield)
  Land Drainage Grants (Wakefield)
  Land Drainage Grants (Wakefield)
  Yorkshire Water Authority (Flood Relief)
  Yorkshire Water Authority (Flood Relief)
  Drainage (Wakefield)
  Drainage (Wakefield)
  USSR (EC Exports)
  USSR (EC Exports)
SCOTLAND
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Amniocentesis
  Amniocentesis
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Council Houses (Exchequer Contributions)
  Council Houses (Exchequer Contributions)
  Dunblane Bypass
  Dunblane Bypass
  Braefoot Bay (Safety)
  Braefoot Bay (Safety)
  Auchterarder Bypass
  Auchterarder Bypass
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Community Health Expenditure
  Community Health Expenditure
  Hospital Revenue Expenditure
  Hospital Revenue Expenditure
  Camic Breathalyser
  Camic Breathalyser
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
EMPLOYMENT
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Enterprise Allowance
  Enterprise Allowance
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Community Industry (West Cumbria)
  Community Industry (West Cumbria)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  "Training for Jobs"
  "Training for Jobs"
  "What Opportunities for Youth"
  "What Opportunities for Youth"
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  YMCA (Training for Life Scheme)
  YMCA (Training for Life Scheme)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Schoolchildren (Medical Tests and Assessments)
  Schoolchildren (Medical Tests and Assessments)
  Maternity
  Maternity
  National Insurance (Number Card)
  National Insurance (Number Card)
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  Take-up Campaign (Merseyside)
  Take-up Campaign (Merseyside)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Retirement (Sub-group Inquiry)
  Retirement (Sub-group Inquiry)
  Domestic Fuel Bills
  Domestic Fuel Bills
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Home Adaptations
  Home Adaptations
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Claimants (Appeals)
  Claimants (Appeals)
  Kidney Disease
  Kidney Disease
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Benefit Payments
  Benefit Payments
  Overseas Retirement Pensions
  Overseas Retirement Pensions
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Patients (Transfers)
  Patients (Transfers)
  Detained Patients
  Detained Patients
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Long-stay Hospital Care
  Long-stay Hospital Care
  Renal Dialysis Units
  Renal Dialysis Units
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Uganda (Military Training)
  Uganda (Military Training)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  European Union
  European Union
DEFENCE
  RAF Maintenance Units
  RAF Maintenance Units
  Arms Sales (Taiwan)
  Arms Sales (Taiwan)
  Main Frame Computers
  Main Frame Computers
  HMS Invincible
  HMS Invincible
  Nuclear Warheads (Transportation)
  Nuclear Warheads (Transportation)
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Public Housing
  Public Housing
  Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order (Availability of Documents)
  Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order (Availability of Documents)
  Sheltered Dwellings
  Sheltered Dwellings
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Physically Handicapped and Disabled People
  Physically Handicapped and Disabled People
  Lear Fan Project
  Lear Fan Project
  Blackwater River (Drainage Scheme)
  Blackwater River (Drainage Scheme)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Amniocentesis
  Amniocentesis
  Industrial National Inquiries
  Industrial National Inquiries
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Disabled Persons (Assistance)
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
  Down's Syndrome
  Down's Syndrome
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Assembly
  Assembly
  Housing Association
  Housing Association
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  "Training for Jobs"
  "Training for Jobs"
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Secondary Education (Wiltshire)
  Secondary Education (Wiltshire)
  Head Teachers
  Head Teachers
  Unemployed Young Persons
  Unemployed Young Persons
  Peace Studies
  Peace Studies
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Basic Education
  Basic Education
  Open University and Open Tech
  Open University and Open Tech
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Students (Union Membership)
  Students (Union Membership)
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  School Facilities
  School Facilities
  Schools (Discipline)
  Schools (Discipline)
  Selective Secondary Education
  Selective Secondary Education
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Open University
  Open University
  Departmental Performance Reviews
  Departmental Performance Reviews
  Experiments on Animals
  Experiments on Animals
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Private Education (Public Subsidies)
  Private Education (Public Subsidies)
  Schools (HMI Reports)
  Schools (HMI Reports)

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

Agricultural Land Reclamation
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, which, unfortunately, has been rather overtaken by events.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the cutting down of woodland and reclaiming the land for agriculture, and whether they agree that this should receive assistance under the Business Expansion Scheme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there is a presumption against large-scale felling of woodlands to make land available for agricultural use. When application is made for the necessary felling licence, the commission consults the agriculture department and, as appropriate, the local planning authority and other statutory authorities before reaching a decision. As the noble Lord has said he is aware, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his recent Budget, proposes to exclude farming as a qualifying trade under the Business Expansion Scheme.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I anticipated. Is he aware that one can still buy forestry land where there are trees under a certain size which have been put there at public expense, grub them up and put the land back to agriculture, thereby tremendously increasing the value of the land and almost certainly getting drainage grants, and so on? Is that not something which should be stopped when we have a surplus of cereals and a very large sufficiency—somewhere in the region of £4,000 million—in wood and wood products?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of the noble Lord's question, but the rules are very tight. Depending on the reason for felling, a licence must be issued for trees of a diameter of more than 10 to 15 centimetres. The rules are drawn very tightly indeed.
Lord Somers: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that timber is a form of agriculture and that we are becoming dangerously short of wooded land?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Forestry Commission undertook a census a little while ago, and I am glad to say that that showed that the area of broad-leafed woods has not declined since the war, although there may have been changes in species. So far as replanting for broad leaves is concerned, some higher rates of grant are available. The noble Lord may be interested
588
to know that the the Forestry Commission has advised me that its estimate is that the planting of broad-leafed woodland in the past five years or so has trebled.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, while welcoming the end of the abuse of the Business Expansion Scheme by the Government, may I ask the noble Lord to say whether the presumption that he mentioned against the widespread clearance of woodland for agriculture would be absolute in the case of the clearance of ancient woodland, bearing in mind the recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology that the losses of ancient woodland have been so severe in the period since the war that no more should be destroyed for any reason whatsoever?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have not said that, and I do not say it now. The noble Lord may be interested in the fact that the Nature Conservancy Council is drawing up a list of ancient woodland sites and is to discuss their management with local Forestry Commission conservancy officers. I join in the sentiments of the noble Lord by saying that I am very glad that that is being done. I think that he has every right to express his concern, but I do not go as far as he has asked me to go.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance—I hope he can—that there is no plan by the Government or by anyone else to cut down Epping Forest? I have an interest to declare as it is at the bottom of my garden.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's interest. I respect it, and I agree with it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as the noble Lord relied on the Forestry Commission census, which suggested that the area of deciduous woodland in this country had not decreased since the war, may I ask him whether he is aware of the very widespread criticism of the basis on which that survey was conducted, and in particular of the criticism which suggests that the Forestry Commission excluded large areas of very small woodland from the figures with which it was comparing its more recent work, and that on that basis the survey is completely worthless?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have confidence in the work of the Forestry Commission.

Sealink: Privatisation
2.41 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made to privatise Sealink Ferries; whether a bid by a consortium led by National Freight for £100 million is under consideration; and what Sealink's pre-tax profits were last year.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary

589
of State for Transport said in another place yesterday, the British Railways Board recently announced its intention of selling the whole of its interest in Sealink UK Ltd. and of selling the company as an entity. The board's merchant bankers, Morgan Grenfell and Co. Ltd., wrote on 19th March to potential purchasers seeking expressions of interest in the company. Formal bids have not yet been requested, and so none is under consideration at present. Sealink earned a profit before interest and tax of £12·8 million for the year to 31st December 1983, compared to £2·9 million for the preceding year.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer. May I ask him whether he agrees that the profits he has just announced reflect considerable credit on this nationalised undertaking and the workers within it? Will he say whether it is a fact that the Secretary of State directed the British Railways Board to dispose of the Sealink ferry fleet and the harbours? Do I understand from the Minister that the ferry fleet and the harbours will be sold as one unit? Is there any reason why the British Railways Board is not retaining an interest in this profitable company?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, with regard to his comments about the improved profitability, which does credit to those concerned with the undertaking. So far as his question with regard to the Secretary of State's direction is concerned, the noble Lord will recall that in 1980 the privatisation of some aspects of the British Railways Board's holdings was discussed and agreed with the board. It is the board itself which has decided that now is the time to dispose of those assets.
I think the noble Lord's third supplementary question was with regard to whether Sealink would be sold as a whole. It is the intention that the company will be sold as a whole, and that is what Morgan Grenfell have set out in their letter. Lastly, the noble Lord asked me whether the British Railways Board would retain any holding, and the answer is, "No".
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what was the £12·8 million profit to which he referred? Was it return on the capital employed in the business?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I cannot do that—my ability at mental arithmetic is not that good—but I can certainly let the noble Earl know that. It may help him to know that in the British Railways Board's public relations press release of Monday 19th March they said that at 31st December 1983 the net assets of Sealink UK, adjusted to reflect the valuation of Sealink UK's land, buildings and fixed plant at 30th September 1983, amounted to £127.8 million, after adding to shareholders' funds an amount due to the British Railways Board on inter-company account of £48.5 million, and £26 million nominal of 9¾ per cent. unsecured loan stock of Sealink UK held by the British Railways Board.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, given that this is an efficient and profitable public undertaking, could
590
the noble Lord say what is the Government's motivation in wishing to sell it? Secondly, is he aware that the lack of information that has been made public has caused a great deal of anxiety and concern, especially among those who are employed in British Rail ports throughout the country? Will he give a clear undertaking that, as soon as possible, the Government or British Rail will publish a document, in the form of a White Paper or some other Paper, which makes the intentions clear?
Further, when the noble Lord states that the undertaking is to be sold as one entity, would he indicate to the House precisely what this means? Are the ports to be sold? Are the installations to be sold; or are the ships only to be sold? Is it possible that at the end of the day it may be split, so that the Welsh ports, for example, of Fishguard and Holyhead will be sold separately? Is he aware that the lack of information on this subject is really a public scandal at the present time?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asks a number of questions. I hope that I shall be able to deal with all of them in the order in which he asked them. The motivation for the sale of Sealink UK Limited is that we believe that Sealink will benefit from the stimulus of private sector status and access to private capital. It will then be able to engage more effectively in the business in which it is engaged. He suggested that there had been a lack of information. I cannot agree with him, in so far as there have been a number of reports and press releases from my department which have set out the intention to privatise—an ugly word but one which we all understand—Sealink UK Limited. Therefore, there is no scandal and no question that information has not been made available.
Baroness Gaitskell: There is.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I repeat there is no scandal attached to the information which we have given with regard to the sale of Sealink UK. The noble Lord asked me whether I would give an undertaking that the proposals for the sale should be made widely known. I can give no greater undertaking than to answer his questions this afternoon. I believe that that should be an undertaking on its own. It will be sold.
So far as the Welsh ports are concerned, we consider that Sealink UK Limited is a complete unit and there is no intention of selling parts of it. The letter that Morgan Grenfell Limited sent out on 19th March, to which I referred in my original Answer, makes it quite plain to any would-be purchaser that it is the entire company in its entirety—ships, buildings, plant, ports and any other assets which the company hold at the time of sale—that is to be disposed of.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, could my noble friend just clear up one point about this? Is it not the case that whoever buys Sealink will then be free to dispose of whatever assets seem to be surplus to its operations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, within certain constraints that may be true, but it is fair to say that, since British Railways have a particular interest, in

591
that they have connecting services and so on and they also have contractual obligations with Sealink, it would no doubt be in their best interests to ensure that a would-be purchaser would not do what my noble friend suggests. Indeed, since the Secretary of State has to give final approval, he will certainly have the national interest at heart.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the first effect of selling off any profitable part of a nationalised industry is to cause greater losses to that nationalised industry? Would he not agree that a secondary effect of that is to cause a greater industrial activity of the part sold off, almost invariably with larger profits? Would the noble Lord not agree that the final effect is to cause a greater industrial activity in the total affairs of this country and therefore to profit us all?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since the noble Viscount's three questions are hypothetical in so far as Sealink is concerned. I regret that I am not able to help him in answering them.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in considering the bids that may be presented, is it the intention of the Government to secure from any of those whose bids may be successful an undertaking that they will not dispose of any part of the ferry fleet and harbours once they have acquired them? Can the noble Lord explain what he means by stimulus of capital, seeing that in 1983 the profits were four-and-a-half times the profits of 1982 and that the return on assets is nearly 10 per cent. and on turnover is 5 per cent., which is most creditable compared with many other companies?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, price will be an important factor in the sale of Sealink, but British Rail also have in mind the continuing commercial links. Since the seven harbours which the company owns will need to be retained in order that the 24 services which are undertaken by its 37 ships are integral, it seems hardly likely that bits will be chopped out; otherwise the company would not be as viable as it now is.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, understands exactly what we mean when we say that the company will improve under the impetus of the private sector rather than the public sector and will in itself attract private capital. The fact that it has made £12.8 million before interest and tax is creditable. We believe that it can do even better in the private sector.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the sale is subject to all kinds of conditions as suggested in the last supplementary question, they will not get their price, and then there would be criticism about not getting the price? As regards the profit, the fact that a business is good at the moment does not mean that it could not be made better. Is my noble friend aware that when set alongside the capital value of the assets as he has explained them, the profits that he has announced this afternoon are not very good and leave considerable room for improvement?
Lord Derwent: My Lords, is it not rather unfortunate that we have had to listen to five major speeches at Question Time on one Question?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord has not answered my question.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: So far as the questions of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls are concerned, I think that the best I can do for your Lordships is to say, yes, I agree with nearly all that he has suggested. There is certainly room for improvement in almost any company. We believe that the sale will give the company a greater impetus for improvement and indeed will provide a greater impetus for its staff, as was evidenced when Associated British Ports and the National Freight Corporation were both privatised; both have moved to greater successes.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask whether when the undertaking is sold the jobs of the employees will be safeguarded?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, any prospective purchaser will have to have regard to the conditions of employment of the 9,400 employees.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister therefore mean—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I am asking the Minister whether by that answer he means that some of these people will be sacked—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Leatherland:—and noble Lords must not try to muzzle me!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can give no undertaking as to what the owner of any company might do. But certainly the present employees of Sealink have conditions of employment and contracts of employment, and it will be up to any prospective purchaser to have regard to that when he makes a bid—if he makes one.

Wildlife and Countryside Act: Compensation Payments
2.55 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: 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 in how many cases and at what capital cost (including as a lump sum pledged annual payments) landowners or tenants have been paid compensation for not carrying out farming operations judged inconsistent with the scientific or amenity value of land and what changes they have in mind to reduce this cost.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must apologise for the length of this Answer. The Nature Conservancy

593
Council has entered into 84 agreements with landlords or tenants relating to constraints on fanning or forestry operations since the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The capital cost of these agreements was £315,079; periodical payments amounting to a further £36,431 per annum were made, with a net present value of approximately £241,118 capitalised over the lifetime of the agreements.
Comparable information on management agreements reached by local authorities is generally not available. However, a special fund held by the Countryside Commission was made available in 1983–84 to assist the first-year costs of agreements entered into by National Park authorities, and I am advised that the commission has made payments, mostly of a capital nature, of £57,350 from this fund in respect of a total of six agreements.
The Government will keep under review the workings of the 1981 Act, including the terms of the financial guidelines which relate to payments under management agreements of this kind.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is my noble friend going far enough? Is not the Treasury in a very embarrassing position here, being required to pay out very large sums of money in grants and subsidies to encourage farmers to grow, for example, cereals, partly because of the common agricultural policy, with the only alternative being to pay quite large sums of money to the same people for not growing cereals? Is that not a pretty ridiculous situation which really requires urgent attention? May I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will look at the compensation provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act as a matter of urgency to try to ensure that they do not get into the same kind of ridiculous muddle which resulted from the planning Acts of 1947?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think it would be premature to draw the conclusion, as my noble friend has done, that the Act is too expensive to operate. There is no general evidence of extravagant demands for management agreements, but naturally the Government will keep the costs of such compensation under close review. There has never been a case of a management agreement failing through lack of funds.
With regard to the first point that my noble friend made, this is a matter which will continually exercise the minds of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture. But I should point out that the financial guidelines are based on the fact that fanners should not lose out in financial terms by not farming in certain areas in the way they prefer. In short, that means a loss of profits basis; and the calculation of such profits includes compensation for any MAFF capital grants forgone.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern in the country that inadequate attention is being paid to the integration of environmental policy with agriculture policy, and can he give us some information on what steps are being taken by the Government to improve this? Is he further aware that, as it now stands, the Act is of no
594
assistance to local authorities in protecting their landscapes, since they are quite unable to bear the financial burden? Does the noble Lord know that Suffolk County Council has calculated that it would cost it £375,000 a year to protect just two grassland valleys and one coastal heath? Will he agree that the financial burden on local authorities—the squeeze—is going to get worse and worse and they will be able to afford to spend less and less on protecting the countryside?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think, and I am surprised by it since the noble Baroness was involved in the passing of the Act in this House and I was not—
Baroness Birk: No, I was not.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness says she was not. But she was certainly aware of what was going on at that time. The whole basis of the Act is not that one should seek to conserve everything. The Act covers those areas which have been identified by the Nature Conservancy Council as areas of special scientific interest. There is no doubt that over a period of years changes will occur in the countryside through normal changes in fanning practices. There is no way, with the best will in the world, that this can or should be stopped.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say how much compensation has been paid out to farmers or landowners to compensate them for not doing things that they never had the remotest intention of doing in the first place? Does he agree that giving a grant to persuade a farmer to do something is a simple and straightforward matter, but that giving compensation to dissuade him from certain action is much more complex? In that connection, can the noble Lord say in how many cases, if any, where there have been negotiations between a farmer and the department concerned for compensation in this area, the department has called the landowner's bluff, and what has been the result?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have no information about what might be called the "try-on" underlying the noble Lord's question. Of course, we look to the bodies offering agreements to satisfy themselves that the planned operation is a genuine proposal. They will be in the best position to make such judgments in the light of their local knowledge as and when occasion demands. If false claims were made to any great extent, the total amount payable for compensation would become so great that the Government would have to consider statutory controls. This would be totally counter-productive to fanners' interests generally and, I suggest, to the interests of conservation, too.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what is the highest payment to an individual farmer per year? It is reputed to have been a figure of £20,400 a year paid to a certain gentleman. Secondly, can my noble friend say how many times the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of the Environment has refrained from objecting to the application of grant

595
on conservation grounds because they think that they would not have got the money for a management agreement?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I said, up to the present, there has never been a management agreement refused on financial grounds. As regards the two specific questions that my noble friend asked me, I am afraid that I cannot answer without notice.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in a number of instances, notably in Halvergate Marsh in the Broads and also in the North York Moors National Park where farmers have been refused Ministry of Agriculture grants on environmental or military grounds, farmers have nonetheless declined compensation available under a management agreement and have gone ahead with development for agricultural purposes to the detriment of the environ-ment or the amenity concerned? Does this not reveal a weakness—
Lord Denham: Question.
Lord Hunt: Would the noble Lord not agree that this reveals a weakness in the Wildlife and Countryside Act where there are no fallback powers of last resort to prevent such a development taking place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I must correct the noble Lord. There is, indeed, a fallback power in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This is the so-called Section 29 Order that has been used in three cases since the Act came into force. So far as the North York Moors National Park is concerned, I do not know the details, but I would suspect that in the cases that the noble Lord has mentioned they are not covered by a site of special scientific interest.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only people in this House when the Wildlife and Countryside Act was being debated who appeared unaware of the appalling problems to which it would lead were those speaking on his Front Bench on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture? Is he aware that everyone else criticised the Bill on exactly these grounds from all sides of the House? Secondly, can the noble Lord say why the Government have set their face so firmly against implementing the guidance side of the common agricultural policy in ways that it is implemented in other European countries to make extensive systems of agriculture more profitable and thus reduce the cost of these compensation handouts?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that the cost around which discussion seems to have revolved this afternoon really enters into it. The Government are prepared and have been prepared to make the funds available for the management agreements. So far as the CAP goes, there is no doubt in my mind that the high return for crops sometimes resulting from the CAP is obviously a factor in the equation. But the indexation provisions of the financial guidelines provide that, if the sales value of the new crop reduces, then so will the compensation payable. In any event, the important point to
596
remember is that the land would not have suffered change of use because, by very definition, the fact that compensation payments have been made means that there is no change of use.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, while he says that the cost is not important, there have been cases where considerable sums of money have been spent for people not to do things which were, in fact, impossible to do, and they have had that information before they claimed the cost?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if that is so, I should like to look closely at proof of it. As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary, I have no evidence that that is correct.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, because he has made a real point. Is the Minister aware that I took down the sums of money involved. Can he say how many acres these sums affect? Is he aware that the publicity that this situation has received has led people to look and see whether they have anything that could come under this category? If he wants instances, I can give a personal one. A neighbour asked me why I did not apply to grub up scrub woodlands next to Epping Forest in an area of outstanding beauty and make a claim. Is he aware that I know of two other cases along the same lines? It is definitely time that the Government took this matter seriously. I wish to preserve these areas, but the Minister must look at the matter carefully.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I fully understand the emotions aroused by this question and this particular problem. I could perhaps give some instances myself which might match those of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. But that would not help the business of the House. We have taken 30 minutes on three Questions. I would ask noble Lords whether we may continue now with business because Questions have been taking a long time.

Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals: Composition
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their present policy on the appointment of trade union representatives to supplementary benefit appeal tribunals and other such bodies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, at present, one of the members of a supplementary benefit appeal tribunal is a trade union representative. Clause 9 of the Health and Social Security Bill now in another place proposes that members of the new social security appeal

597
tribunals should be drawn from a single panel representative of people living and working in the area. We hope that trades unions will continue to be well represented on the panel of members.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and in order to assist the House I shall be brief. Can the noble Lord give an undertaking that the trade union movement will receive deep and sympathetic consideration in future proposals by way of their retaining rights that have been granted in the past by successive Governments regarding this matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course representation by trade union members is important: but so also is flexibility to overcome delays that have been caused by the shortage of trade union members in some cases. The new legislation should give sufficient flexibility to avoid these problems in the future.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to be made to a Private Notice Question in another place on the British hostages in Angola.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time of 7.30 this evening.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Urban Parishes Bill [H.L.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to facilitate the creation of parishes in urban areas. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
County Courts Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

London Docklands Railway Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should like briefly to intervene at this stage to draw attention to the Special Report from the Select Committee on this Bill on the question of petitioners' costs. I say at once that 1 am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the chairman of that Committee, for making available that report even if I did not agree with the committee's decision.
It all arose from an application by the petitioners, Trinity House and Tower Hill Trust, for the costs of fighting their case—an environmental battle—against London Transport which had amounted to the staggering sum of £35,000. It proved a victory, I am glad to say, in preserving one of London's oldest and historic landmarks—a victory, indeed, for the public good but a pyrrhic victory in terms of the crippling costs.
Certain noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who I know has been following this Bill with his usual parliamentary care—have been following the Bill's progress. The issue of the ticket hall proposal, at Tower Hill Underground, which was the nub of the problem in this contested case, was of course only a small part of the major Bill which concerned the new rail link between London Docks and the City. The ticket hall proposal came under Clause 16 of the original Bill with powers of compulsory purchase and powers as regards planning consent for the new building.
I hope that the House will not mind my recalling briefly what happened. Just prior to the deposit of the Bill London Transport had cursory consultations with the local planning authority as to the design of this ticket hall. No consultation whatever was held with the landowners involved—Trinity House—despite the fact that as a body they have been trustees of that historic site for over 200 years. In fact, Trinity House only heard about the proposal a month after the Bill was deposited. They were appalled at the insensitive design, but the question that arose was how were they effectively to fight the proposal, particularly as London Transport showed no remorse or any desire to redesign this ticket hall. Trinity House decided, on advice—and I think that they were absolutely right—that they could not simply say, "We do not like this proposal". That is not enough in today's techniques of opposing effectively planning proposals. It would have been all too easy if they had said that, but it would also have been all too easy for London Transport to claim that the technical operational and cost constraints made their proposal—that is Scheme 1—the only sensible answer.
Trinity House took it upon themselves to appoint immediately an independent consultant to advise them and, indeed, to devise a credible alternative proposal that would have a minimum impact environ-mentally. It was produced in two months and it was

599
rejected by London Transport four months later on the grounds of cost and operational problems. But it achieved its goal, because what happened then was that London Transport instructed another independent consultant, at a cost we do not know, who came up with Scheme 3. Scheme 3, with certain modifications, met the approval of Trinity House, the Governor of Tower, the local planning authority and no doubt many other amenity bodies, and was generally acceptable. It was a victory for sensitive and responsible planning, achieved for the public good but, as I have said already, at very great personal cost to Trinity House.
But the cost did not stop there, because London Transport then discovered that Scheme 3 went outside the limits of deviation of the original Bill and so they sought leave of the Select Committee to strike out this entire clause and so promote an entirely new Bill for this purpose. Because of all this additional work the Trinity House parliamentary agents sought a contribution directly from London Transport, and they sought £10,000 which was roughly a third of their costs. The reply eventually came that London Transport would offer an ex gratia payment of £2,000, but subject to Trinity House not seeking costs from the Select Committee.
The transcript of the proceedings of that Select Committee, which I have studied very carefully, showed that the petitioners put forward two arguments to the committee to support why they considered that they had been put to unreasonable cost by the promoters to defend their rights. The first was that there had been no prior consultations which they claimed—a claim I think I would support—could have avoided a great deal of abortive costs. I must say that I found that argument compelling in those special circumstances and was disappointed, frankly, that the Select Committee's report did not even refer to this question of prior consultation. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will deal with that later on.
The second argument that they put forward—and this is to me even more compelling—was that the promoters, having withdrawn part of a Bill and promoted another Bill, of course incurred abortive costs, and indeed unreasonable cost to those who were fighting the case. No reference was made to that in the Select Committee's report either. Instead, I humbly suggest that the report seemed to concentrate on the engineers' costs for Scheme 2 of £8,000 which had been incurred by the petitioners, but forgot completely to highlight—and I particularly say this to the noble Lord, Lord Foot—the fact that there had been legal costs of £21,000 which had grown and grown as the promoters came up with Scheme 3 and then the new Bill.
But perhaps the most disappointing aspect, and what I think seems to be patently unfair, is the £2,000 ex gratia payment offered to the petitioners by the promoters. During the proceedings of the Select Committee the noble Lord, Lord Foot, at the very end of the proceedings, on page 43, asked: "Is it"—that is, the offer—"still on?" The reply was:
"I am instructed it lapsed on its non-acceptance, but we are prepared to make the offer again; so again it is an open and standing offer upon those terms, of course".
600
I suspect that none of the Members of the Select Committee really understood what "upon those terms" meant because, of course, they did not have the terms before them. I suspect that they thought, as I thought when I read it, that that offer in fact still stood. I am sad to say that I understand that it does not still stand, and indeed that London Transport have withdrawn it. What I suspect the reply really meant was that if the petitioners' parliamentary agent sat down immediately at the very end of the proceedings, then he would get his £2,000—not a wholly reasonable situation. On reflection, I would hope that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as chairman of that committee, might feel able to approach London Transport to see whether they would reconsider settling the sum with the petitioners, and so gain some good will out of this matter.
Of course, I accept the Select Committee's decision on this matter of not seeking a recommitment. But I suspect that if they had been given a freer rein, other than the constraints of Section 1 of the old 1865 Parliamentary Costs Act, a different decision would have been made. In my experience this is the second Bill in recent times that has disturbed me due to the lack of flexibility that committees have in awarding costs to petitioners. I cite the Shrewsbury Bill.
I believe that the time has come for the Chairman of Committees to look into this question of costs on Private Bills. Clearly, the 1865 Act is demonstrably too rigid and restrictive to meet modern-day needs. I would humbly suggest to my noble friend either that Section 1 of this Act should be repealed and the matter of costs becomes added to the standing orders of the House, or that Section 1 is amended to give greater flexibility to Select Committees to award costs. I believe that this Bill has demonstrated that need.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the words that have fallen from the lips of the noble Earl. In my view, the decision that was made in this case on the matter of costs raises a question of general importance and one of particular importance about the procedures which are followed before Select Committees. Very briefly, I should like to recite the history of the matter slightly differently from the way is which the noble Earl recited it but I hope not distorting it in any way. It went like this.
The London Transport Executive promoted this Bill in order that they might be empowered to build a railway from the Docklands up towards the City. The terminus at the western end of the railway was to be in the neighbourhood of Tower Hill. In my view the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is quite right when he said on 15th December 1983 in this House on Second Reading (at col. 352 of Hansard) that that site in the neighbourhood of Tower Hill is:
"Perhaps one of the most historical and environmentally sensitive landmarks in London".
The noble Lord is quite right in saying that, as soon as the petitioners became apprised of what was about to happen, they immediately took action, and commissioned a report from a firm of engineers putting forward an alternative scheme to the one which had been put forward under the Bill by the London Transport Executive.

601
That scheme was evolved and was presented for consideration to the London Transport Executive, and after a period of time the executive indicated that it was unacceptable to them and they then proceeded to evolve a third scheme of their own. As a result, the detrimental effects that would have flowed from their original plan were averted. I think that the noble Earl agrees that the plan which eventually emerged was a vast improvement upon what had gone before, not only from the point of view of the petitioners in protecting their own properties, but also from the public's point of view in preserving the splendour of the environment.
Therefore, the situation was that, as a direct result of the second scheme evolved and produced by the petitioners, the Bill was amended and we were eventually faced with a very much more attractive proposition than we had been faced with in the first place. I think that it can be perfectly rightly said that the petitioners' opposition and the scheme which they persuaded the promoters to adopt resulted in radically altering the original plan, with the result that, in my view, the petitioners not only took proper steps to protect their own properties, but in forcing through the third scheme—which was so much more attractive—they performed a very useful public service.
Unhappily, however, when it came to the question of whether there was to be an order for costs against the promoters and in favour of the petitioners to compensate them in some way for the expense to which they had been put in putting forward their opposition, because of the terms of Section 1 of the 1865 Act—which is the Act of Parliament which governs this matter—we on the committee felt that we could not accede to the petitioners' request. The reason for that is that Section 1 of the 1865 Act provides in these very restrictive terms that:
"a petitioner shall be entitled to recover costs from the promoters"—
and I omit the matters which do not here apply—
"When the committee … strike out or alter any provision of such Bill for the protection of such petitioner, and further unanimously report, with respect to any or all of the petitioners against the Bill, that such petitioner or petitioners has or have been"—
and here are the important words—
"unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense.".
So if the petitioners in this instance were to persuade the Committee to grant them an order for costs against the promoters, it was incumbent upon them to persuade the Committee that the promoters, the London Transport Executive, had indeed unreason-ably made them subjected to expense.
After considering the whole matter, we came to the conclusion that we should not go so far as that, and on that account we were precluded from making an order for costs. I agree with the noble Earl that it is high time we took another look at Section 1, because I know of no other jurisdiction or tribunal before which it is necessary for a person seeking costs to establish so restrictive a condition as that. That was an Act of 1865 and it is still the law which prevails in the procedures of Select Committees today. It is high time that another look was taken at that because the views about when costs are properly payable have undergone a
602
very considerable change and alteration in the 120 years that have since passed.
There is another objection to this particular section which seems to me to reduce the matter almost to absurdity. As I said just now, it is provided that before a committee can order that costs shall be paid to petitioners, they must unanimously report that in their view the promoters have unreasonably or vexatiously made the petitioners subject to expense. On the face of it that seems to me to be quite ludicrous. If there must be unanimity, and if a Select Committee consists of five Members of this House with four of them in favour of awarding costs and one of them against, then they are not unanimous. As a result, it inevitably follows that the decision of the minority of one prevails over the decision of the majority of four.
That question did not arise in this case, may I say, because, rightly or wrongly, we were unanimous in the view that we took; but I pray that in aid of the argument that we ought to take another look at this extraordinary Act of Parliament in order that there may be some relaxation in the restictive provisions, but above all that this requirement of unanimity may be struck out from the test and from the Act. Therefore, I share the anxieties that have been expressed by the noble Earl, and I hope that as a result of this Bill we shall—and I hope with not too long a delay—set up some inquiry (I am not sure what the organisation should be) to see whether this is not indeed today in need of amendment.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I think that the House has reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for the constructive way in which he has followed what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said. There is a case here for looking again at this 1865 Act, now 120 years old. There are certain factors that are different today as compared with those days in the middle of the last century. I feel that there has been injustice caused in recent months, or, I might say, in recent weeks, because a fortnight ago the Shrewsbury Bill fell by the wayside in the other place, but the Shrewsbury Football Club is still left with substantial costs to meet.
I felt when I read the Select Committee's report that any Select Committee that was chaired by my noble friend Lord Listowel would have looked at this issue carefully, and after listening to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I am quite convinced that they did consider what could be done but felt hampered by the provisions of the 1865 Act. At the same time, I am bound to say that London Transport did produce a Bill in November 1982, but it was not until December 1982 that the landowners, the charity concerned, heard about the terms of that Bill.
There are many people, including myself, who would think that that was unreasonable behaviour. I should like to have a situation in which the promoter of a Bill is encouraged, possibly by the question of costs being awarded later, to engage in consultation with interests concerned before a Bill is drafted and placed before the House. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, I do not propose to say very much more. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will be able to tell us that there will be some

603
consideration by the appropriate people of this 1865 Act.
I make just one other point about the case of this particular charity. My understanding is that as a consequence of the amendment to the original Bill there is another Bill which will come before another Select Committee. I wonder whether it would be possible for that Select Committee to look again at the issue of the costs which have fallen upon the charity concerned. My own feeling in this, which I put before the House, is that instead of the overriding Act requiring a petitioner to prove that it has been unreasonably and vexatiously treated, surely it would be preferable if the Select Committee had to consider whether it was fair and reasonable to award costs in all the circumstances.
If it was looked at from that point of view I am quite certain that in this particular case, and possibly in the case of the Shrewsbury Town Bill, we should have had a different decision taken by the relevant Select Committee. I say again that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can assure us that, using his authority, he will ensure that this question of amendment of the 1865 Act will be looked at.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, as your Lordships have shown considerable interest in this private Bill both in speeches on Second Reading and again this afternoon, it might be appropriate if I, as chairman of the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, were to say something about the report and particu-larly about the costs incurred by two of the petitioners, the Tower Hill Trust and Trinity House. I should also like to say something about consultation, as that is a matter raised by speakers this afternoon.
So far as this matter of prior consultation is concerned, I would remind your Lordships that the promoters of a private Bill are under no obligation under our Standing Orders to consult interested parties, though it may of course be to their mutual advantage to do so. The committee on this Bill were told that in their case, owing to the urgency of the railway works, consultations were limited, but they were carried out to some extent both with the GLC and with Tower Hamlets, the responsible local authorities.
These consultations included discussion of the scheme for the first Bill, to which subsequently the petitioners objected on amenity grounds. At this stage, of course, the question of the charities incurring unreasonable expenses did not arise. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Beswick both argued very persuasively indeed about the possible desirability of prior consultation.
The difficulty about this procedure would have been that, if the two charities concerned, Trinity House and the Tower Hill Trust, had been consulted and had there been this wider measure of consultation, it could not have been limited to them. It would have been necessary to extend it to all the interests—landowners, businesses—affected by the construction of this railway. This would have resulted in a long delay in the start of the railway works. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the development of the dockland area depends on the construction of this railway.
604
I shall not weary the House with the history of the Bill except to show why the negotiations leading up to the final Bill took a long time and were, therefore, extremely expensive. Briefly, the petitioners objected to the first Bill on the ground of the visual impact of an enlarged and unsightly ticket office at Tower Hill station. At the same time they instructed their engineers to submit an alternative scheme for the ticket hall, and this scheme they submitted to the promoters. It was objected to by the promoters, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, mainly on the grounds of operation and cost.
The promoters then put up a third scheme which had the general approval of the petitioners because it dropped the proposal for the extended ticket hall at Tower Hill station. The petitioners had at this stage won their amenity battle and would normally have withdrawn their petition against the Bill, in which case of course the expenses would have been much lower. But as they wanted to apply to the committee for their costs they left the petition on foot to enable them to make application for costs under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865.
This brings us to the nub of the argument for the committee's decision about costs. The important point is that any committee considering application by a petitioner for costs must do so within the narrow limits of the wording of Section 1 of the 1865 Act. This lays down that costs can only be awarded if a committee reports unanimously. These are the key words. I think they were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but as they are the key to the whole position I should like to quote them again:
"that such petitioner or petitioners has or have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending his or their rights proposed to be interfered with by the Bill".
A committee therefore has no discretion in the matter of costs. Wherever its sympathies may lie it is tied hand and foot by the terms of the Act.
The Select Committee heard the parties relating the whole history of the lengthy negotiations in which the petitioners had been involved and they learnt about the very substantial sum involved in the costs—a total of about £35,000, of which about £8,000 represented charges made for the preparation of the second scheme. The question that the committee had to decide at the end of the proceedings was whether the petitioners could be said to have been unreasonably subjected to all or part of these costs by the conduct of the promoters during the negotiations. They decided (and this was in the report) that, while appreciating the anxiety of the petitioners to protect the site—I may say in passing that I entirely agree, and I think your Lordships would, with the description of this site by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as,
"perhaps one of the most important historical and environmentally sensitive landmarks in London"—[Official Report, 15/12/83; col. 352.]—
the petitioners were on no occasion unreasonably subjected to expense, bearing in mind the nature of the negotiations, which were necessarily lengthy, nor were the petitioners unreasonably subjected to the expense incurred in the preparation of the second scheme, as it was not essential, not indispensable, to their opposition to the Bill. Their objective had been

605
achieved when the promoters decided to abandon the first scheme.
Your Lordships usually have confidence in the decisions of your Select Committees because they have had the advantage of hearing counsel for the parties and also any witnesses which the parties may have wished to call: a procedure that enables the committee to reach its conclusions having heard the fullest possible statement of all the arguments.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, having had some experience of Private Bill procedure in another place, may I trespass upon your patience for a few minutes in defence of the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865? I should not wish to talk about the decisions reached by the Select Committee except to say that I entirely endorse the decisions taken, but may I suggest that if the Act of 1865 were to be altered the only way in which it could be done would be that costs should, in legal language, "follow the event"—I believe that that is how it is put—which is the rule applicable to ordinary litigation.
Under that rule, a successful petitioner would be entitled to his costs as a matter of course, unless his conduct clearly had made that result unjust. Presumably a successful petitioner would have to be defined to include one who had persuaded the promoters voluntarily to seek the committee's leave to withdraw the provision in the Bill to which there had been objection taken. As a possible corollary, no doubt, the promoters of a Bill could become entitled to an award of costs against unsuccessful petitioners.
Parliamentary agents generally, who are the persons with the greatest knowledge of Private Bill procedure, regard the present Act as satisfactory. In fact, far from it having been proved unsatisfactory, the same principles have been adopted in the operation of ministerial practice on compulsory purchase orders under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
Where a local inquiry is held, Section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 comes into play. By that subsection the Minister is empowered to make orders:
"as to the costs of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom the costs are to be paid".
In the ministerial circular entitled Housing and Local Government Circular No. 73/65: The Award of Costs of Statutory Inquiries, the following criterion is adopted as a rule of general application for the award of costs. I quote:
"Costs should normally be awarded against a party who behaves unreasonably, vexatiously or frivolously".
This criterion was taken from "A Report of the Council on Tribunals on the Award of Costs at Statutory Inquiries". This criterion is very much akin to that in Section 1 of the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, by which a parliamentary committee is empowered to award costs to a petitioner who has been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending his rights.
Both the Act of 1865 and the ministerial circular 73/65 contain criteria which are far and away from the practice in ordinary litigation, where, as I have already mentioned, in all but exceptional cases costs are awarded as a matter of course to the successful party
606
under the practice known as "costs following the event".
I would suggest that the reason for this difference in approach on the award of costs is that Private Bills, like compulsory purchase orders, deal with matters of public importance and where the public interest often conflicts, unavoidably, with private interests.
In my view it is important that promoters of a Bill should not be deterred from ventilating arguments in support of their case by the fear that if a view different from their own should prevail before a Select Committee they would be made liable for costs, however reasonably they had behaved in presenting their case. In my view it would indeed be unfortunate if promoters of Private Bills were to be deterred by such a fear, as this would tend to discourage conflicts between public and private interests being brought before Select Committees for the specific purpose of arbitration. For this reason, I would defend the Act of 1865 as it now stands.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee and I entirely agree with its conclusions, as I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Earl. Lord Listowel, said today.
The Select Committee was bound by the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865 and not by any standing order. I now speak as an individual. I am not a lawyer and I hope that I will be forgiven if my legal jargon is faulty. I am very doubtful now whether Section 1 of the Parliamentary Costs Act is equitable. In this matter the petitioners won their point. If this matter had been the subject of litigation in a court of law the costs might have been awarded against the London Transport Executive. The question of unreason-ableness or vexation would not have arisen. Under the 1865 Act I suggest that only the rich can afford to petition against a Private Bill, whereas in a court of law someone of modest means can hope to recover his costs if he wins his case. If his means are very modest, he may even get legal aid. For these reasons I suggest that after 119 years the Parliamentary Costs Act might well be amended.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I had absolutely no intention of speaking and I agree with the findings of the Select Committee absolutely, but this is rather a sour note at the beginning of an important Bill. I feel that, after having settled the matter of the ticket office and everything else, one wishes the progress of the development of London Docklands and everything that goes with it well in the future.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am grateful to all of your Lordships who have taken part in this short but interesting debate. It would be quite improper for me to comment on the decision taken by the Select Committee. The Select Committee was most ably chaired by my predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and we have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, who were members of that committee. I am sure that the whole House will feel that we should support their findings. However, the main thrust of the debate has really been on the subject of the 1865 Act which

607
influenced their decision. I have been asked, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, if I would have a look at this Act. I certainly will, and I will take into consideration everything that has been said this afternoon. I think that it may not be quite as easy as it appears on the surface. The noble Lord, Lord Murton, made it clear that it is not quite unique, that this kind of procedure also applies in the case of compulsory purchase orders, and he also instanced some of the possible disadvantages of changing the Act and going nearer towards the procedure which takes place in the courts.
The other point is that, whereas most of the proceedings of Private Bills are regulated by standing order, this, exceptionally, is regulated by legislation, the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, and therefore to make any change would require legislation. But, having said that, I will certainly take into account everything that has been said. I will have discussions with those who deal with this matter in the other place whose consent obviously also would be required, and I will see if anything emerges from those consultations.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he say something about the point of the committee before which the second Bill has to go? Would that committee be competent to reconsider the question of costs?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, there is no reason why any Select Committee should not consider the matter of costs, but again within the ambit of the 1865 Act.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Angola: British Hostages
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the British hostages in Angola. The Answer is as follows:
"Our interest in this matter is a humanitarian one. We wish to see the British hostages released as quickly as possible. Consistent with our normal position on hostage-taking, we are quite happy to speak to anyone if that is what is required to secure their release and are already in touch".
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Answer, and may I further ask her a few questions? Can she say how many Britons are now resident in Angola and how many in Unita-held territory? Can she say what arrangements are being made to ensure their safety, and can she further say how the hostages are being treated and whether we are able to monitor their welfare either through the Red Cross or in some other way? Given that the hostages have been in captivity for five weeks, is the noble Baroness aware that we welcome this more constructive attitude by her department during the past 48 hours? Is she able to say
608
why the Government did not take some steps to secure the release of the hostages rather sooner? Finally, are the Government able to contact Unita without difficulty?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord has just said. In the event that Mr. Savimbi, who, I understand, is holding these hostages, would say that our intervention on behalf of the hostages constitutes some form of recognition, the Government should firmly repudiate any such suggestion, since my understanding is that nothing of the sort arises in the event. But I imagine that out of the release of the hostages he would try to make such political capital as he can. I hope that the Government will be able to resist that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their reception of this Answer. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me how many British citizens are resident in Angola. I understand that there are about 200 British citizens in Cabinda, north of Angola. There are, of course, a number of missionaries, as well. In Luanda there are 60 to 70 British citizens. He asked me how the hostages are. I am glad to say that all are reported to be in good health. He also asked why we had taken no steps sooner to do anything about the situation. I should like to make it plain that since the seizure of the hostages we have been making representations through the International Committee of the Red Cross to try to get their release. Dr. Savimbi said that he would not indicate terms until their arrival at base camp. They have now arrived and we are trying urgently to clarify Dr. Savimbi's position.
A Unita representative today discussed the position with a Foreign and Commonwealth Office official and we hope to get an authoritative reaction very soon. I hope that what I have said will also answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn; but I should like to make it quite clear that the contact with Unita is not a recognition of Unita. The contact is purely on humanitarian grounds. It follows our standard practice in these situations.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Minister about the last phrase in her repetition of the Answer? She said that she was "in touch". Can she tell the House with whom she is in touch and in what circumstances?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that what I have said—that a Unita representative had discussed the position with a Foreign and Commonwealth official—makes this quite clear.

Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Issue of warrant for transfer]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert— ("Subject to the following provisions of this section,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 21.
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
(" (1A) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act, and if he has issued one, shall revoke it, in any case where after the duty under subsection (1) above has arisen and before the transfer in question takes place circumstances arise, or are brought to the Secretary of State's attention, which in his opinion make it inappropriate that the transfer should take place.").
Amendment No. 21: Page 8, line 1, after ("above") insert ("or in a case falling within section 1(1 A) above").
Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage on 5 th March I undertook to consider whether the Secretary of State's discretion to issue a warrant, once the three essential conditions specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) had been met, could be changed to a suitably qualified obligation. I mentioned some examples of circumstances in which the Secretary of State might have cause to change his mind and not issue a warrant after having given his consent to a transfer. One example was where a prisoner to whose transfer the Secretary of State had agreed committed another offence for which he would need to stand trial. It would clearly be inappropriate for the transfer to proceed in such circumstances. The question of transfer would need to be suspended until after completion of the further proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that the issue of a warrant could be made mandatory with the qualification, "unless there is some intervening material circumstance". That is at col. 26 of the Official Report of that day. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, suggested the qualification, "unless new circumstances arise". That is two columns later in the Official Report. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Melchett, (at columns 27 and 28) suggested that the qualifications should be more explicit.
Having considered this matter very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that it would be reasonable that the Secretary of State should normally have a duty to issue a warrant once the three conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) had been met. Amendment 3, accordingly, changes the discretion to a duty by substituting the word "shall" for the word "may". I pause to nod at that stately admission. May I say, as I said at the last stage, that debates about "may" and "shall" in your Lordships' House are always of the greatest interest. Precedent suggests, and learned advice endorses, that very often they mean the same thing. But I am told that in this case those of your Lordships who doubted that can be satisfied—and that is our proposal.
As was accepted, however, by your Lordships at Committee stage, this duty needs to be suitably qualified. We do not consider it prudent to make this qualification too specific as unforeseen circumstances might arise in practice where issue of a warrant would be inappropriate. The qualification in the proposed new subsection (l)(a) in Amendment No. 4 is therefore in general terms. It is intended to cover not only some event or circumstance which occurs after the Secretary of State has agreed to a transfer in accordance with Clause 1(1)(b) but also any pre-existing Bill which comes to the attention of the
610
Secretary of State after he has agreed to the transfer but before the transfer has taken place; for example, the emergence of evidence that the prisoner concerned had been involved in some earlier serious criminal offence. Since it is possible that the circumstances affecting the Secretary of State's agreement to a transfer may come to his attention after he has issued a warrant but before transfer has taken place, the new subsection (1)(a) provides also for the revocation of the warrant in that event.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 21 are consequential upon the two substantive amendments. I believe this group of amendments satisfactorily meets the concern expressed at the Committee stage, and I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I was the one who dared to suggest that "may" be altered to "shall" and, as a result of that daring, I had the treat that I always enjoy; that is, a dialogue with the noble and learned Lord, who will always teach me law and do it with great grace. On that occasion we wondered whether the provision should not be clearly mandatory so that there it was beyond any peradventure and without any necessary reference to the books to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred.
I am very glad that the Minister has clarified the matter by bringing forward these amendments at Report stage. He has done so with his usual care and consideration with regard to any matter which is debated in your Lordships' House on Bills of which he is in charge, and I am grateful to him.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like just to endorse the approval for the amendment. "Shall" and "may" are used interchangeably. Often "may" means "shall" or "shall" means "may". Now, by reason of these amendments, we get any ambiguity cleared up and everything now seems to be most satisfactory.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("(c) the prisoner has consented to being transferred in accordance with those arrangements,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, with your Lordships' leave, I will speak also to Amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act unless he is satisfied that the consent given for the purposes of subsection (l)(c) above was given in a manner authorised by the international arrangements in accordance with which the prisoner is to be transferred and was so given either—

(a) by the prisoner himself; or

(b) in circumstances where it appears to the Secretary of State inappropriate by reason of the physical or mental condition or the youth of the prisoner for the prisoner to act for himself, by a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be an appropriate person to have acted on the prisoner's behalf.").

At Committee stage I readily agreed to consider introducing a Government amendment making subsection (l)(c) of Clause 1 more explicit as regards the circumstances in which consent to transfer might be given on behalf of a prisoner. I explained that consent by parents on behalf of young children would need to be provided for. The circumstances in which the giving of consent on behalf of a prisoner might very

611
rarely be justified will be where the Secretary of State considers the prisoner incapable of deciding for himself because of mental disorder, because of physical disability or because of his young age. The new subsection (2B) proposed in Amendment No. 7 accordingly states this explicitly.
We have also taken the opportunity to guard against a possible lacuna in the operation of the provisions of the Bill. While the rights of parents to take decisions on behalf of their children, at least up to the age of consent, are well established, there is no recognised procedure in law for decisions of this sort to be taken on behalf of those whose mental or physical condition is impaired. We have concluded, therefore, that the most appropriate solution is for the Secretary of State to have power, on the very rare occasions when this may be necessary, to authorise a person to act on the prisoner's behalf. Amendment No. 7 accordingly provides the Secretary of State with the power needed for this purpose, and Amendment No. 2 is consequential upon it. These amendments clarify in two important respects the necessary provision in the Bill for consent to be given on a prisoner's behalf. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may remind the House, at Committee stage I mentioned the grave concern of the National Association for Mental Health in regard to those who were suffering from some form of mental disorder. Their concern was two-fold: first, who would be consenting on their behalf, and was there provision in the Bill for persons to act on their behalf, for such consent? That has now been answered by the noble Lord the Minister in his Amendment No. 7. It is clear that the Secretary of State can appoint such a person, and the power is now given.
However, perhaps I may also remind the House that there was a second matter of concern which I expressed at the same time—and again it was the concern of the association: that nothing was laid down in this Bill, and nothing had been said about what the procedure would be if it were to be outside the Bill, as to the guidance the Secretary of State would require—and one would have thought that necessarily it would need to be medical guidance—on whether it was in the medical interests of the patient that there should be this transfer. Of course, there is a procedure under the Mental Health Act 1983, which applies in rather different circumstances.
The noble Lord the Minister promised that he would consider that second matter as well and I know the House will allow me to read a very short extract from a letter that he was good enough to send me, only so that it appears on the record and that the procedure is abundantly clear. In the course of that letter, which is dated 2nd April 1984, the Minister said this:
"What we have in mind, therefore, is that if a case of this sort should arise we should adhere as closely as possible to the procedure which Parliament had laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983 for the removal abroad of alien mental patients. This would entail the Secretary of State being satisfied that transfer was in the patient's best interest and that proper arrangements had been made for the transfer and for his care or treatment in the other country. It would be outside the formal remit of a mental health review tribunal to advise on such a case but the intention would be to seek the views of a panel of experts constituted in exactly the same way as a mental health review tribunal and consisting of persons who sit on such tribunals".
612
I am sure that the society I mentioned to your Lordships will be very grateful for that statement which was contained in the Minister's letter and which makes quite clear the procedure which will be adopted in protection of mental patients from abroad who will be transferred from this country.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this amendment, which I think covers the situation as well as can be done. I am a little worried about one thing: the expression "mental or physical condition". Supposing somebody is a very disturbed character, as some are apt to be, and is absolutely determined not to be brought back, but comes under this definition of being mentally or physically incapable of making proper decisions. In such a case can the Secretary of State overrule his determination not to be brought back, and bring him back? This is an awkward question and I ask it because I think we ought to face it. These cases are so marginal, but we shall get cases of this kind and it is at least as well to ventilate the situation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the Minister for the care with which he has considered the points that were raised at Committee stage, not just on his amendment but on all the cases where he agreed to look at what was suggested by your Lordships in Committee. We are most impressed with the work that he has been doing, and are grateful to him for the attention that he has paid to the points that we raised. On this one, I am very happy about the way that it is expressed, except that I think, following what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, it might have been a good idea if there had been some link between this Bill and the Mental Health Act 1983.
The wording which was in the Minister's letter that the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, read out sounded to me very like Section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959, which I think was transferred intact into the 1983 Act. That provides, as the Minister's letter said, that proper arrangements have to be made for the care and treatment of a patient in his country of origin if he is to be sent overseas. The Minister has said that he would adhere to that provision and that, obviously, in the case of British patients being brought back from special hospitals overseas to equivalent institutions in this country, that would apply also. So I am suggesting for further consideration when the Bill reaches another place that it might be an idea, in the case of these psychiatric patients, to make it explicit on the face of the Bill that the arrangements mentioned in the 1983 Act will be followed.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said about the lengths to which the Minister has gone to meet a number of points made at Committee stage? It might be worth mentioning that Amendment No. 11, which is in the names of the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson, and others, including myself, will clearly be withdrawn as it is identical to Amendment No. 7, to which the noble Lord is now talking, which shows the lengths to which he has gone to pre-empt the suggestions made by noble Lords in Committee.

613
For my part, I am inclined to think that the wording in the noble Lord's Amendment No. 7 is right, because it seems to me that in the circumstances that we are talking about there will be quite a variety of cases—albeit a very small number of cases—where people are not in a position to exercise a judgment and to make a decision. There will be cases where people are so physically ill, for example, as opposed to being mentally ill, that they are not able to exercise a decision, and where it would be right for the Secretary of State to recognise somebody else, a relative in this country, as being in a position to take a decision for them. So for my part, I am not really persuaded that it is necessary to go beyond the terms of the amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for the gracious way in which all noble Lords have received our efforts to meet your Lordships' wishes. If I may very briefly, with your Lordships' leave, address the three points raised, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that if the prisoner or patient in question was incapable of making a rational decision, the Secretary of State would be empowered to overrule him. The delicacy of the issue is on the judgment, not so much of whether he should come back but of whether or not he is capable of a rational decision.
That leads me to the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Melchett, and, in view of the late stage and the clarity with which they have expressed their views, the best thing I can do is simply to undertake to draw what they have said to the eye of my honourable friend before this Bill goes to another place, and that I freely do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed earlier: col. 609.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed earlier: col. 609.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the same grounds, I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 6, after ("citizen") insert ("or had indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and had been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at any time in the two years preceding his conviction for the offence for which he was imprisoned;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to begin with an apology to the Minister and to your Lordships for the fact that all the amendments that are tabled in the names of myself and my noble friends have a star against them. We were working rather against the clock because, as the noble Lord realises, we saw the Government's amendments only on Thursday, and we were not able to consult with our advisers until the week-end and to draft our own amendments, in the light of what had already been tabled by the Government, until yesterday afternoon. So I apologise
614
to your Lordships for the lateness with which we have been able to act in this matter.
The first amendment in our names is a follow-up to one that we moved in Committee, when we were discussing the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion to issue a warrant under Clause l(2)(b) of the Bill to provide for the transfer of a person having close ties with the United Kingdom back to this country. The Minister has since then been good enough to write to me explaining what he has in mind.
He said, first, that in some cases a person will continue to qualify for entry in the capacity in which he was originally given an indefinite leave to remain, and the examples that he mentioned are those of a wife or a dependent child of a man who has settled here. He said that in those cases the fact that he or she has been absent for more than two years will not prejudice the entitlement to return. The question that occurs to me there is this. If the person was originally entitled to enter as a dependent child but, when he comes to the end of the sentence, he is, with the efflux of time, over the age of 18, will the Secretary of State invariably exercise his discretion to allow him to re-enter? As the noble Lord will recall, there have been one or two cases of that kind, where a person was below the age of 18 when he or she was sentenced overseas but where, at the end of the two years, he or she was above that age and would not therefore have been entitled to enter, if an application had been made in respect of him or her, as a dependent child of a person settled in the United Kingdom at the end of that period.
The second question that arose in my mind on this passage in the Minister's letter was whether a spouse would always be given leave to re-enter even if, as a result of the separation caused by his serving a sentence of imprisonment abroad, the marriage had broken down, as very often happens with people serving sentences in the United Kingdom. If a person who has entered the United Kingdom perfectly legitimately as a spouse, and who has been given indefinite leave to remain, is then sentenced overseas and perhaps serves two to three years there, and if in the meanwhile the spouse in the United Kingdom has brought an action for divorce because of the separation and strain that that imposes on the marriage, would the person who had been granted indefinite leave to remain be admitted at the end of a period of more than two years?
In general, it would be a good idea to say in advance whether particular categories of people would be re-admitted, rather than leave it entirely to the Secretary of State's discretion. This amendment is an attempt to define a group which would have to be re-admitted, while still leaving the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in respect of all other categories of persons.
The thinking behind the amendment is that if the person had not been in custody at the end of the two years' absence from the United Kingdom, then he would have been able to come back here and exercise his entitlement to return and he could be prevented from doing so only as a result of his imprisonment. Clearly, if at the end of the imprisonment he is denied the right to come back here, then this would be to punish him a second time, because without that imprisonment he would have returned to the United

615
Kingdom and taken up residence here in the normal way. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord the Minister will agree to this very minor, as I see it, amendment, which would normally be in conformity with the way in which the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion anyway. I beg to move.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his preface to the amendment. While I accept that the star appearing against an amendment on a Marshalled List is not usually a merit star, I ought to tell your Lordships that as we tabled amendments a day later than I normally set as the minimum and as I was also visiting various prisons away from London at the end of last week, I was unable to sign the letter which had been prepared for me to send to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and to other noble Lords. Therefore I have no grounds for complaint, although the lateness of the tabling has caused us a certain amount of distress. I hope therefore that your Lordships will be indulgent of any defects in the replies that they receive as a result.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, I have written to him about the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion to admit to the United Kingdom persons who are not British citizens. In that letter I confirmed what I said at the Committee stage, that decisions about the repatriation of prisoners who are subject to immigration control will include consideration of whether it would be in accordance with immigration policy to admit them. I emphasise that it would, in our view, be quite wrong if the arrangements for repatriation provided for in the Bill were to be operated so as to allow people to enter this country who would not qualify if they had not been convicted of a crime. At the same time, where persons have close ties with the United Kingdom I should expect that in many cases they would be admissible under our immigration policy.
As I said before, I can give no blanket assurance about the admission of all persons who previously had indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom and who had been in prison abroad for more than two years. The decision in any individual case would depend on whether the person's return would be consistent with normal immigration policy and would vary from case to case. There should be no difficulty about persons who would qualify for entry in the capacity in which they were originally given indefinite leave to enter—for instance, where the person is the wife or dependent child of a man settled here. In those cases, the person's entitlement to enter the United Kingdom will not be prejudiced by the fact that he has been absent from the United Kingdom for more than two years. In certain other cases, a person may qualify for entry on the ground that he has lived here for most of his life. Paragraph 57 of the immigration rules applies here.
Another ground would be that he is a Commonwealth citizen who was settled here on 1st January 1973 and has been settled in the United Kingdom for the last two years. Otherwise, the only provision under which a person may qualify to return is paragraph 56 of the immigration rules, which states that the person must not have been absent from the
616
United Kingdom for more than two years. This rule is intended to preserve the rights of entry of people who maintain close links with this country, and in general we are not prepared to set aside the two-year limit. An exception may occasionally be made where a person's absence was caused by circumstances beyond his control, but the fact that a person commits a crime which leads to his being imprisoned would not on its own normally be regarded as a sufficient ground for making an exception. In looking at any individual case, consideration will be given to the nature of the offence and how long the person has been absent before he commits it.
I should add that persons who have been convicted of certain serious crimes abroad may be debarred from returning, even where they would otherwise qualify for entry under the immigration rules. Paragraph 83 of the rules provides that such persons must be refused leave to enter unless there are strong compassionate grounds for admitting them. There are exceptions in respect of the wife or child under 18 of a man settled here, or of a Commonwealth citizen who was settled here on 1st January 1973. These exceptions would no doubt apply in some of the cases about which the noble Lord was particularly concerned. In reaching a decision on whether such a person could be repatriated under the Bill, it would be necessary to consider also whether there were strong compassionate grounds, or whether any of the exceptions applied.
I now turn to the noble Lord's amendment. Its effect is to extend the scope of Clause 1(2)(a) to include certain people who are not British citizens. At present, Clause l(2)(a) applies only to British citizens. People who are not British citizens may be repatriated under the powers in Clause 1(2)(b), but this is subject to their having close ties with the United Kingdom and only if the Secretary of State judges it appropriate. It is right to distinguish between British citizens and others in the way that the Bill now does and to make the transfer of non-British citizens discretionary. A person who is a British citizen has an absolute right to entry to this country. He is not subject to immigration control. If a British citizen wishes to serve his sentence in this country, then prima facie he ought to be transferred here, but the same cannot be said of people who are not British citizens.
The category of people referred to in the noble Lord's amendment who have had indefinite leave to remain here and who have been ordinarily resident here do not have an absolute right of entry to this country. They are subject to the Immigration Act and the immigration rules. The present position under the rules is that a person who has indefinite leave to remain may be readmitted to this country provided that he is absent for less than two years. His entry is still conditional on certain other requirements in the immigration rules, including a rule which prohibits the entry of anyone who has committed a serious offence, unless there are strong compassionate grounds otherwise.
The amendment would thus pick out as a special category for entry some people who would not qualify for entry under the immigration rules approved by Parliament. As I have already said, it is not intended that the Bill should enable a person to be repatriated who would not qualify for entry under normal

617
immigration policy. We do not think that this Bill should be used as a means of changing the immigration rules, which this amendment would, perhaps as a by-product, do. That question should be addressed in its proper context, and that context is not this Bill. The Bill is not intended to alter the immigration rules or the immigration status of those whom it affects. As drafted, the Bill is consistent with that principle. It allows people who are not British citizens to be repatriated if they have close ties and the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate. We do not think it is necessary or appropriate to go further, and I am sorry that it has taken me so long to state that simple fact.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it seems to me that the Government are making a bit of a meal of this. I do not say that simply because of the length of time it took the noble Lord to say that he did not approve of the amendment. For a start, whether the amendment is in the Bill or not, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to accept a prisoner back to this country or to refuse the transfer of the prisoner. That discretion is absolute. If, for example, a person is a convicted terrorist and the Government decide that his transfer back to this country is undesirable, whether he is a British citizen or someone who has indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, the Government, as the amendment says, are still free to refuse him. That is why the Government are making a bit of a meal of it. It does not make that much difference to the Government's powers. It seems to me that the Government, in suspecting the motives of those who have put their names to this amendment—as I thought was the implication of the noble Lord's reply in believing that this is an attempt to change the immigration rules—have missed a point which would have been helpful to them.
I tried to follow the point the noble Lord was making, and it seemed to me that the Government, if the amendment is not accepted, will have to look behind the offence for which somebody has been convicted abroad, if it has prevented them from returning to the United Kingdom for two years, and will have to decide whether they committed the offence, whether they were reasonably convicted of it and whether the offence they have been convicted of would or would not be an offence in this country. That involves the Government in making a number of judgments about the criminal jurisdiction or some other form of jurisdiction (because we know that there may be other than criminal jurisdiction in other states), and deciding whether that person was properly charged, whether they had a reasonable hearing, and so on, in order to reach a judgment about whether they had a reasonable excuse for remaining out of the country, while in gaol abroad, for the period that they did.
Therefore it seems to me that the Government are introducing many unnecessary and difficult complications into the decision-making process, which this amendment would have allowed them to avoid in most cases. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will try to look at the amendment on its merits in terms of this legislation and the process that the Government need to go through to implement it in particular cases and not be quite so concerned as it
618
seemed to me that the noble Lord was about the possible implications of what is clearly a very sensitive matter in his mind—namely, the immigration rules.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept this amendment. It is perfectly clear that in the ordinary way a British citizen has a right to come to this country—but as to a person who is not a British citizen, he is subject to the immigration rules. I should have thought that the immigration rules which we have often had to consider can be applied to this particular case and considered without any of the complications of this amendment. I would ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are talking about people who have close ties with the United Kingdom and not about just any old foreigner who wishes to come back and serve the rest of his or her sentence in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is no doubt aware, some cases have already been submitted to his colleague Mr. David Waddington of people who did remain overseas for more than two years because they were serving sentences of imprisonment there. The Minister was good enough to exercise his discretion in their favour and to readmit them, notwithstanding the fact that they did not qualify as returning residents under paragraph 56 of the rules, as the Minister has said.
All I am trying to do with this amendment is to limit the exercise of discretion in a manner that conforms with the way in which the Home Office is already behaving. It has become the practice, as I see it, that minors who are Commonwealth citizens, having spent most of their lives in the United Kingdom with their parents, and having entered as dependants when they were very young, and who are convicted of offences overseas while in their teens, for example, are normally readmitted even if they have spent more than two years overseas. If that is the practice, then the Minister is not giving anything away by agreeing to the limits on discretion which are suggested in this amendment.
If I may say so also, in spite of the fact that the Minister explained very carefully what his reaction was to the amendment we moved in Committee, he did not address himself specifically to the two questions I asked in my introductory speech. The first was, what would happen normally in the case of children who are minors when they reach the age of 18 while overseas, and who therefore no longer qualify as dependants in their own right? Secondly, what would happen in respect of spouses whose marriages foundered while they were serving sentences of imprisonment overseas because of the separation or for other reasons; would they be entitled to readmission? We cannot really pursue these details at this late stage on Report, but I would request the noble Lord the Minister to put these matters before his colleagues in another place, so as to make sure that they are properly considered before this Bill gets there. Perhaps further thought may be given to them in the Home Office, with a view to specifying more exactly the circumstances in which this discretion would then be exercised.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will be very brief because the noble Lord has, I believe, given a signal that he will allow this matter to be re-addressed in another place, and so I will not delay your Lordships. I just ought to say that I entirely take what I suppose was the drafting point of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in respect of the discretion remaining in subsection (2)(b). I thought it important to address the principle in the amendment, which was, I thought, to seek to bring about the position to which I addressed myself.
I should re-emphasise that if I were to give an answer in concrete terms to the two instances which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought forward (or to any other instances) I should be removing a discretion and giving an advantage—if the answer were to be, "Yes, there is to be a waiver on these occasions"—beyond that which other people in similar circumstances would have. It would also be entrenching a right to return to this country which I believe ought not be entrenched when one remembers that one is talking about people who, having been accepted for residence here, have gone away and committed a crime in another country and been imprisoned for it. Imprisonment is usually the fault of the prisoner. That does change circumstances and it is right that the Secretary of State ought to be in a position to review those circumstances when the prisoner asks for the right to come back again. I thought that I ought to put that on the record so that the noble Lord would not let this matter go to another place under a misapprehension about what I consider the Government's position to be.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, obviously I am not entirely happy with the Minister's reply. It is a matter that ought to be pursued in another place and therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2. line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act, other than one superseding an earlier warrant, unless he is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to inform the prisoner in writing in his own language—

(a) of the substance, so far as relevant to the prisoner's case, of the international arrangements in accordance with which it is proposed to transfer him,

(b) of the effect in relation to the prisoner of the warrant which it is proposed to issue in respect of him under this Act,

(c) in the case of a transfer out of the United Kingdom, of the effect in relation to the prisoner of so much of the law of the country or territory to which he is to be transferred as has effect with respect to transfers under those arrangements, and

(d) of the powers of the Secretary of State under section 6 of this Act;

and, the Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant superseding an earlier warrant under this Act unless he is satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken so to inform the prisoner in relation to the earlier warrant before the earlier warrant was issued.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak also to Amendment No. 20:
Amendment No. 20: Clause 6, page 7, line 43, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 1 (2A) above,")
The proposed new subsection (2A) of Clause 1 is intended to give effect to three undertakings which I gave at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed an amendment relating to the provision of information for prisoners in writing, in their own language, to help them decide whether to consent to transfer. I explained why we did not consider it appropriate to include certain of the items of information included in that amendment. In accepting the principle behind the amendment, I indicated that the Government amendment I should be proposing would be of a somewhat narrower scope. Our officials have since discussed this matter with officials of the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad. I hope that this amendment will cover the items which it is generally agreed are practicable for inclusion in the proposed requirement.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection provides for prisoners to be informed of the substance of the relevant international agreements. This provision is in terms similar to the obligation imposed on sentencing states by Article 4 of the Council of Europe's convention on the transfer of sentenced persons. Your Lordships will wish to know that the Council of Europe is likely, later this year, to publish as a formal recommendation to governments of member states a standard text for the purpose of giving effect to this obligation.
The intention will be that each country which ratines the convention should deposit with the Council of Europe secretariat an authoritative translation of this standard text in its own language, modified as each country may consider appropriate. The secretariat will then copy each version of the standard text to the other countries which ratify the convention, so that each country will be able to provide prisoners who are nationals of other participating countries with information on the substance of the convention in their own language.
The United Kingdom, for instance, should receive in due course appropriate versions of the text for issue to prisoners of French, German, Italian, Spanish and other nationalities. This should be a very useful arrangement for ensuring that prisoners are reliably informed about the convention. I should in fairness add that it was the United Kingdom which suggested the arrangement and provided the initial draft of the standard text during the negotiations which led to the convention. I do not doubt that this will make some of your Lordships read that text with very close and critical attention.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection (2A) provides for the prisoner to be informed of the effect of the United Kingdom warrant which would be issued if he were to be transferred. It applies to both inward and outward transfers but its main relevance is to transfers to the United Kingdom from abroad. Information as to the effect of the warrant for inward transfers would include the type of custodial regime under which the prisoner would be detained; an indication of the maximum term to be served on transfer to the United Kingdom; and details of arrangements for remission and parole. Paragraph (c) relates to information to be provided to nationals of other countries who are eligible for transfer from the United Kingdom. The information should generally be on similar terms to

621
that provided for British nationals abroad under (b), but the Secretary of State will have to rely on the authorities of other countries for the provision of authoritative information in each case.
The second undertaking to which subsection (2A) is intended to give effect is that which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the context of his Amendment No. 67 at Committee stage. That proposed extending Clause 6 to preclude the issuing of a new warrant to correct erroneous material information given to the prisoner prior to his consenting to transfer.
Amendment No. 20 to Clause 6 makes it clear that a warrant may be issued in substitution for a revoked warrant only in accordance with the new subsection (2 A) of Clause 1. Thus a warrant superseding an earlier one may be issued only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that, before that earlier warrant was issued, the prisoner had been informed of the effect in relation to him of that earlier warrant. As I have already indicated, in the case of a transfer into the United Kingdom from abroad, the Secretary of State could not be satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to enable the prisoner to give a fully informed consent unless the prisoner had been given correct information concerning the length of the term he would have to serve and the provisions which exist for that term to be reduced by remission or parole.
If a warrant were issued following the consent of the prisoner in the light of the information he had been given, a superseding warrant would be possible only to the extent that it, too, reflected that information. In other words, if the earlier warrant proved to be defective because it was at variance with the material information given to the prisoner before its issue, the final words of subsection (2A) would prevent its being superseded by a fresh warrant which likewise failed to accord with that material information.
The third undertaking was also given to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, after he had proposed Amendment No. 66 at the Committee stage to prevent the Secretary of State issuing a new warrant containing provisions less favourable than those in the original warrant unless this was provided for in the original warrant and in the relevant international arrangements. Paragraph (d) of the proposed subsection (2A), and the words of the amendment which follow it, ensure that a warrant substituting less favourable terms will be possible only if, as required by paragraph (d), the prisoner has been made aware before he consented to the issue of the original warrant of that possibility and of the circumstances in which it would be possible in his case to act under Clause 6.
I have spoken again at some length on this amendment as it embraces a number of important matters about which considerable concern was expressed at the Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it deals adequately with these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if such debate as takes place on this amendment also takes place on Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 13, at end insert—

(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act, other than one superseding an earlier warrant, unless the
622
prisoner before consenting to the proposed transfer was informed in writing in his own language—

(a) of the substance, so far as relevant to the prisoner's case, of the international arrangements in accordance with which it is proposed to transfer him;

(b) of the effect in relation to the prisoner of the warrant which it is proposed to issue in respect of him under this Act, including where possible details of his earliest possible release date and the provisions regarding remission and parole that would apply to him; and

(c) of the powers of the Secretary of State under section 6 of this Act;

Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant superseding an earlier warrant under this Act unless the prisoner was so informed in relation to the earlier warrant before the warrant was issued.").

Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act other than one superseding an earlier warrant, unless he is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to inform the prisoner in writing in his own language in the case of a transfer out of the United Kingdom, of the effect in relation to the prisoner of so much of the law of the country or territory to which he is to be transferred as has effect with respect to transfers under those arrangements, and, the Secretary' of State shall not issue a warrant superseding an earlier warrant under this Act unless he is satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken to inform the prisoner in relation to the earlier warrant before the warrant was issued.").
I propose to deal with Amendment No. 8 and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will follow me in regard to Amendment No. 9.
At the Committee stage, what we wanted to secure by an amendment which we then put down was that "consent" truly meant consent. That implies that the party who gives the consent really knows all the material facts that he needs to know to make up his mind whether he agrees or disagrees with the transfer. After saying that there were some difficulties in his path in regard to the amendment that was then put down and in complying with some of the particulars in the amendment, the noble Lord the Minister at column 17 said this:
"That said"—
that is the part that deals with the difficulties—
"we recognise the justice of the principle behind this amendment, and, what is more, we sympathise with it".—[Official Report, 5/3/84; col. 17.]
The noble Lord carried through his sympathy not just mentally and in his heart but by putting down this amendment. We are grateful to him for that. Your Lordships may therefore think that it is possibly somewhat ungracious that we do not immediately rise to say how happy we are with it and that we accept it. But there is a reason, and it is not an ungracious one.
If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to Amendment No. 8, you will find that it follows, word for word (I think I am correct in saying), the amendment which your Lordships have just listened to and which was moved by the noble Lord the Minister—that is, until one gets to the last part of paragraph (b). Your Lordships will see in the third line these words occurring:
"including where possible details of his earliest possible releae date and the provisions regarding remission and parole that would apply to him".
That is possibly the most material consideration for any prisoner—to be told what would be his earliest possible release date if he came back to the United Kingdom, and indeed if he were going elsewhere from the United Kingdom, and what provisions regarding

623
remission and parole would apply to him if he changed his country of imprisonment.
The words "where possible" are put in on purpose. It was very well realised that, to take, for example, a prisoner who has a life sentence, it is quite impossible to give the information as to when he will be released. As your Lordships know, in this country that depends on many considerations—on the discretion of the Secretary of State and matters of that kind—so the words "where possible" cover such a contingency.
This is a very material matter. I repeat that it is possibly one of the most material matters that the prisoner ought to have before him before he is asked to give his consent. Otherwise, in my respectful submission, "consent" does not mean consent at all.
Those who drew up this amendment were very considerate to the Government. They said, "Possibly you have gone too far in putting into one amendment and one clause provisions that relate to transfer in and transfer out", so there is a separate amendment put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and others, and I am happy to be associated with it. That is Amendment No. 9. It puts rather less of a duty upon the Secretary of State in relation to the matters dealt with. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will be dealing with that matter. I am content, for my part, to ask your Lordships to prefer Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to the amendment now before you only because it omits the very words which I think are so important in regard to a prisoner's rights before he consents.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, between them, Amendments No. 8 and 9 are really an amendment to Amendment No. 6. I do not think that I have anything to add to what the noble Lord said from the Labour Front Bench. If Amendment No. 8 were accepted, then you need Amendment No. 9; if Amendment No. 8 is not accepted, you do not need Amendment No. 9. There is nothing particular in it beyond that. In many ways we could have done this simply by having an amendment to Amendment No. 6, but that is not a very graceful way of doing it and it was thought that this was a better way.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should have thought that Amendment No. 8 was unnecessary, because the words in Amendment No. 6 are:
"the effect in relation to the prisoner of the warrant".
The term "the effect" includes not only the immediate matter but also, I should have thought, details, where possible, of the release, and so forth, and parole. It would seem to me that the existing words in the proposed Amendment No. 6 would cover the position sufficiently without making it, in effect, mandatory, as in Amendment No. 8. In other words, I would support Amendment No. 6.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the careful way in which he considered Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 which we moved at the Committee stage and for the way in which he has embodied them in his amendment. That part of it is extremely satisfactory to me, if I may say so, and I hope to my noble friends as well.
624
With regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, we listen to him with enormous respect, and if he says that the wording in the Minister's amendment gives us what we want, we should be content to leave it at that. However, I should like to be assured that in the case of transfers inwards an effort is made to give the prisoners this vital information. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, anybody who has spent time in prison knows that it is of absolutely critical importance to the whole way of life and the whole thinking of a person in custody. He is constantly working out how many weeks or months he has left to serve. He wants to know what would be the earliest date that he can get out, if he earns full remission and if he qualifies for parole, and what changes there will be in the length of the sentence according to the way in which these factors operate. If subparagraph (b) of the Minister's amendment means that he can invariably be given this information, then obviously it would be very reassuring. But one would like to see it written into the face of the Bill rather than be left to be implied by the word "effect". I do hope that some clarification can be given, if not on the face of the Bill, by the Minister being very specific in the reply he now makes.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, because other noble Lords are prepared to accept from him phrases which apparently they do not accept from me. May I just repeat what I said when I introduced this amendment? Of course I spoke at some length and attention may have wandered but I will re-read one sentence:
"As I have already indicated, in the case of a transfer into the United Kingdom from abroad, the Secretary of State could not be satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to enable the prisoner to give a fully informed consent unless the prisoner had been given correct information concerning the length of the term he would have to serve and the provisions which exist for that term to be reduced by remission or parole.".
The emphasis was different and so indeed was the authority of the voice behind that, but the message was the same. I hope your Lordships will be content with our amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I am in order, but having said that I was going to speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and certainly to No. 8 in the debate on Amendment No. 6, can I spare your Lordships another speech and another moving of Amendment No. 8 by replying now on this amendment—and, I assure your Lordships, doing it very shortly?
Of course I heard what the noble Lord the Minister said, and it will be on the record. That is where it stays. Not all your Lordships' debates are read with the avidity outside as they are by your Lordships who may be reading your own speeches in the Official Report. We are dealing with an Act of Parliament and I shall always bow, as I have said before in the course of my remarks today, to the learning of the noble and learned Lord, who I regard very much when I hear him talk law as my teacher, as I have also said before, and I am glad to be the pupil.
But pupils nowadays have the right to turn round to their teachers and debate with them. I would merely

625
say to the noble and learned Lord that the words here are "the effect" and there can be an argument as to what "the effect" includes. The noble Lord the Minister says in his remarks—and he had to say this so that we knew what he meant by the words "the effect"—that of course this would include giving particulars of the sentences and the remission.
What is the point of leaving matters to doubt, especially when this Act of ours will be read in other countries with whom we will have an agreement? Why should it not say what the Minister says it means and which the noble and learned Lord says it means? Why should it not spell it out? It is just two more sentences on the statute book, but it removes a doubt. What a cheap cost that is for removing a doubt and for letting all the countries who might see this Act know exactly what we mean and exactly what the duties are.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister, having acknowledged that these are essential things for the prisoner to know, and having seen in the amendment the words "where possible", will, with his grace and the charm that we have all got used to in this House, say that upon reconsideration he can admit these words so that there is no longer any doubt, and all of us will go away happy; and prisoners, who may have the benefit of this amendment, will be grateful.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I wonder whether I can just add to what my noble friend has said. It does seem to me that there is rather more room for doubt about the meaning of the word "effect" than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord the Minister have suggested. After all, the effect of the warrant is to transfer the prisoner back to this country. We are talking about prisoners coming back here. It is surely the effect of other legislation, the legislation governing parole, remission of sentence and so on, which will affect the length of the sentence. I am not a lawyer and I do not think any of us are likely to be sitting in the court which may be called upon to decide this matter. It will not be done, as all of us know, with any reference to what is said in debates in your Lordships' House: it will be done solely by reference to what is said on the face of the Bill. It does seem to me that there is at least ground for argument for saying that the effect of the warrant is to transfer the person back here and it is the effect of the other legislation, which may change in the course of the person's imprisonment abroad or other changes that may be made, which will affect the earliest possible release date.
I urge the noble Lord to have one more look at this and to take some further advice before we reach the Third Reading of the Bill in this House. As has been said by my noble friend with great emphasis—and I think quite rightly—this is the one bit of information which it is vital for a person to have when they are imprisoned or incarcerated abroad, in order to make a sensible judgment about whether or not a transfer is in their interests. It is this, above all else, which they need to know.
May I make the point to the noble Lord, as he has said it in an earlier debate, that not all these people will be imprisoned for things that we consider are criminal offences. Some of them may well be incarcerated for things that they did which we fully support and which
626
have the full support of Her Majesty's Government, or for things which we believe it is quite wrong for anybody to be incarcerated for. So we are not talking in this Bill only about people who have committed crimes in the terms which we understand it, which have been sentenced by due process of law in terms which we understand, and which are held in custody on any grounds which we in this country would think are justified. I hope all of us will bear that thought in mind when discussing the provisions of the legislation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure whether our rules of order normally permit your Lordships to give me leave to speak three times but we are speaking to three amendments so perhaps you will be indulgent. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I do believe that the amendment which we have before us in my name will have the effect that he wants. He would like to see it spelt out so that he who runs may read and he who runs abroad may read.
I do not have a definite objection in principle to incorporating the words that he wants in the Bill. I strongly suspect we shall get into very deep water when we look at it—as we shall—when it comes to defining things like remission and parole. I may be wrong on this, but I want to make it clear that I think that what appears to be quite simple to achieve in drafting terms may be quite difficult. Therefore, when I say that we will look at this, I would not want your Lordships to think that I was lightly assuming responsibility for finding a niche in the Bill for the terms that the noble Lord has put in his amendment because I think we may find that the terms would require definition somewhere in the Bill, and I think that we could find that that would be quite a difficult thing to do. But I have listened carefully to what your Lordships have said. I recognise your reasons for wanting something on these lines and I will do what it seems to me proper to do in that respect.
Before I sit down, may I say that I of course accept what the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, quite rightly reminded your Lordships of—and reminded me of, indeed—that whereas most prisoners are in prison for their own fault, the fault is not always something that would appear to be a fault to us in this country, and we need to remember where our sympathies sometimes lie.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed earlier: col. 610.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as I have down Amendment No. 11, which is in exactly the same words, I shall without further elaboration support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 8:
[Printed earlier: col. 621.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the remarks to which we have just listened, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.1 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("(2B) In the case of a transfer into the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this Act, other than one superseding an earlier warrant, unless he is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to ascertain whether any charges are intended to be brought in the United Kingdom against the prisoner and whether any warrants for his arrest in the United Kingdom remain unexecuted, and the prisoner has been informed in writing in his own language of any such charges or warrants, and the Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant superseding an earlier warrant under this Act unless he is satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken so to inform the prisoner in relation to the earlier warrant before the warrant was issued.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not quite sure why this amendment is down in my name because it is exactly the same as one that was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Donaldson, dealing with the question of information being given to a prisoner regarding the possibility that charges may be brought against him when he is brought back to the United Kingdom. In the course of his remarks on the earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out that the prisoner himself ought to be well aware of any charges that could be brought against him for past activities in this country. That would of course be true if the person concerned had been guilty of the offences.
But we are also postulating that when the prisoner is returned from a foreign country there may be brought against him charges of which he is wholly innocent. This is not a far-fetched proposition. One can remind oneself of the recent BBC programmes, "Rough Justice" in which it was shown that many people had been convicted of extremely serious offences, had served substantial terms of imprisonment, and were subsequently found to be innocent. Therefore it is right that we should give to people coming back from overseas information about their liability to prosecution here, and this is what we attempt to secure by means of the amendment.
The Minister did not really object to that as a proposition. What he said (as reported at col. 49 of the Official Report of 5th March) was that it might prove to be difficult to ensure that where the information was technically available to the Secretary of State, because it had come to the notice of an official, there was, as it were, no comeback on him later for failing to provide it in circumstances where the Bill would have required him to do so if my noble friend's amendment had been passed.
So we are returning to this point because the noble Lord did not elaborate on it and he was not given a chance to pursue it further because the amendment was withdrawn. I am not sure what advice the noble Lord has since been able to take, but it would be interesting to know how this amendment would operate, assuming the circumstances that he mentioned—that an official had knowledge of charges
628
that were to be brought against an individual when he was returned to the United Kingdom, but the matter had not come to the notice of the Secretary of State and therefore he did not give that information to the prisoner as he would have been required to do.
It seems to me that if the amendment were passed, it would be incumbent on the Secretary of State to make whatever inquiries were necessary to ensure that if the information was in the hands of the police, for instance, or consular officials, it was indeed conveyed to the prisoner. I feel that this is not asking a great deal in addition to the other obligations that the Minister has been good enough to assume in response to other amendments. So I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have now given to your Lordships this amendment will prove to be equally acceptable to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, how I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when he says that he is not quite sure why the amendment has been put down in his name. That is a position in which I occasionally find myself—though not able to reveal a very similar feeling—but I am happy to say that on this Bill I am four-square with Government policy. The amendment picks up the point addressed by the noble Lords opposite at the Committee stage in their Amendment No. 26, and that amendment itself picked up one of the points enshrined in their earlier amendment at that stage, No. 25. The amendment that we now have before us is rather different, but that is its ancestry, and I refer to the earlier, Committee stage amendment because it was in our discussion of that amendment that the comparison between what is proposed to be done under the Bill and what is in practice done under laws of extradition was first mentioned. It was the noble and learned Lord. Lord Elwyn-Jones, who in a passage in which he coined the word, "extraditee"—I am sorry to bring that up when he is not here, and I add that he instantly repented of it—said that he was a little unhappy about the discrepancy proposed.
The concern at the bottom of this amendment, as with its predecessors, I believe, is therefore that a British prisoner shall not be surprised upon his voluntary return to this country in custody to find that he is charged with further crimes. If a person is extradited to this country from another, the law protects him from being charged with any crimes other than those which form the basis of this extradition. That is not what is proposed in the amendment, and I think we can all agree that it should not be.
The fact is of course that a person who is extradited to this country is alleged to have committed crimes but has not been convicted of them, while a person transferred under the Bill will have been convicted of a crime and have been sentenced for it, whatever may be our view of that offence. That is a fundamental difference which alone makes the analogy between transfer and extradition, if there is one, a false one.
But there is a much more fundamental difference, and for our purpose one that is more relevant, too. It is that the person being extradited is travelling under duress, while the person being transferred will certainly be doing so voluntarily, and in many, and probably almost all. cases will be doing so at his own

629
request. The duty to protect from prosecution on other counts the person extradited arises therefore in circumstances entirely different from those we are now looking at, and I believe that that difference ought to bear on what is now proposed in the amendment—a duty to inform the person being transferred, in so far as is reasonably possible, of any further charges awaiting him.
Repatriation of prisoners is not going to be an exercise in which the Government sweep British prisoners out of foreign goals and into Britih courts. It will be an exercise in which British prisoners may seek the comforts of British goals, which may seem meagre to us, but which could look very agreeable indeed when seen from a foreign cell. Others may seek the transfer on their behalf, just as others may seek the transfer of foreign prisoners outwards from our prisons to their native gaols, but in either case the prisoner is the intended beneficiary and cannot be removed without his consent. I have already said in Committee that that consent will be based on information provided in large part by the Government, and your Lordships have just accepted a Government amendment which provides that that shall be so.
I have also said that where the Government are aware of further charges outstanding the prisoner will normally and routinely be informed of them. The prisoner, we must presume, will at least be aware of what crimes he has committed and those for which he has not been brought to book. The amendment now asks not just that he should be informed if the Government know whether the authorities are aware of any of the crimes and are likely to pursue him for them—and that, I should have thought, was a fairly generous action on the part of a central law enforce-ment authority, anyway—but would have us go further than that. It would require central Government to see that all reasonable steps had been taken to ascertain whether any charges are intended to be brought against him, or whether any warrants for his arrest in the United Kingdom remain unexecuted.
Before I rose to my feet I did not know much as to what the noble Lord had in mind as regards the meaning of "reasonable" in this context, but it coincides exactly with what I had put down as probably being reasonable. That is that it would mean inquiring of every police force in the United Kingdom as to whether it had anything of this kind, either in existence or in contemplation, against the individual. That in turn would mean that 52 separate police forces up and down the realm would all have to search their records under the name of the prisoner and any other names by which he might be known, as well. That would be a very large bureaucratic exercise, and it would probably not be the only one necessary to meet the amendment; and all for what?—to ascertain whether a convicted offender can return to this country to serve the remainder of his sentence secure in the knowledge that he would be safe from prosecution for any other crimes which he might have committed before he left it.
My own view is that that would be bending over backwards to be fair so far that we should fall over. It is up to the prisoner to decide whether he wants to come home, and he has every opportunity to say that he does not. The amendment offers quite expensive
630
preferential treatment from which the only significant beneficiaries would be people who had committed other crimes in this country for which they had not been caught or punished. I can think of better ways for our officials and policemen to spend their time and our money.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, what he says is based on two quite false and extraordinary hypotheses. First, he seems to be suggesting that there is absolutely no exchange of information between different police forces in this country, no such thing as computers and no such thing as centralised records for people suspected of offences or liable to be charged with them, let alone people for whom warrants have been issued. That is odd coming from a Minister in his position. Surely, he accepts that there is some exchange of information between police forces and that there are records held centrally of people who are wanted for criminal offences.
The second false premise on which the Minister has spoken is, if I may say so, rather more fundamental. He seems to base his entire remarks on the assumption that anyone charged with an offence in this country is guilty of it and has committed it and that therefore anyone abroad, who is liable to be charged in this country, is bound to know about it because they have actually committed an offence. That does away with everything to do with trial, defence, judgment and so on. It is an absurd proposition. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that there are some people charged in our courts who have not committed any offence and who are rightly found innocent by the courts as a result.
It is therefore possible, I put it to the noble Lord, for people to be in the following circumstances. They are in gaol in a foreign country. They have committed no offence either in that country against its laws or done anything that would be an offence in this country. They have been locked up at the whim of a dictator in that country for political reasons to get at the British Government because the dictator does not like the policies of Her Majesty's Government. That is not an unknown circumstance under this Government or any other. The person is therefore innocent and held wrongly in gaol. The Government, quite rightly, through this legislation, make every effort to transfer the person back to this country. The person has not only fallen into unhappy circumstances abroad but has also had information laid against him by an informer in this country who has been trying to bargain away a severe sentence that, again, is totally erroneous about an offence that he has not committed or had any involvement in. But when he returns, he will face serious charges as a result.
In those circumstances, if I may say so to the noble Lord, this whole thing takes on a rather different character. It would be fair to the innocent person held abroad in gaol to be told that very serious charges, of which he is totally innocent, as it will eventually turn out, no doubt, will be laid against him. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will rethink his approach. We are not talking simply about people being informed about things that they should know already. If that was the case, there would be no purpose in having a criminal justice system in this country.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it was curious that the noble Lord in his initial remarks talked entirely about extradition, referred to what happened in Committee and quoted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elton, who was not there—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I meant the noble and learned Lord. Lord Elwyn-Jones. Did I say Lord Elton?—I am so sorry; it is old age. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was not present in Committee and there was no discussion about extradition at all. It seems to me that the case has been made that the Secretary of State should be under an obligation to do what is reasonable to find out whether anything else is involved. I do not think that courts would say that he has to consult every police station in the country. What is reasonable is to make an inquiry. Whatever is the proper way to do that, I do not know. It might be a question of consulting one or two sources about a man. I think that this is reasonable to ask in the few cases that we are expecting. Let us not forget that. All that this amendment really does is to say that if the Secretary of State does, with reasonable industry, find anything, he must disclose it. I would have thought that this is, on the whole, a reasonable request. I hope that the noble Lord will at any rate think about it. One of the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised this matter was not pure chance, I feel sure. I had thought that he would press it much harder than I did last time, which he has.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I briefly support the opening line of the argument of the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, in relation to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that one of the great difficulties in dealing with the aspects of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Avebury was that there were 72 police districts, or whatever they are, and there was difficulty from a bureaucratic point of view. It comes as a great surprise to me that the noble Lord. Lord Elton, is living in the Victorian era. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has indicated, there are such things as computers. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, has not yet realised that within the Palace of Westminster—I declare an interest in that I am a founder member—there is a Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, affectionately known as PITCOM. We would be glad if the noble Lord the Minister could spare some time in order to keep himself up to date with methods of communication. One of the main points of his argument, as I understood it, was that we cannot deal with this matter because we would have to communicate with 72 authorities. I am surprised that the noble Lord should have mentioned that at this early hour of the afternoon.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships were, I think, trying to sting me to my feet, and you have certainly succeeded. I always think that for people in our position it might be more comfortable to live in the Victorian age. I have, however, no illusions that I do. Nor, I believe, does the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. There is exchange of information between police forces and these forces do, of course, have
632
computers. There is no central Big Brother—if there was, I am sure that the first person to try to hack it to pieces would be the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—which keeps a list of all the people the police suspect. What the noble Lord is asking us to do, if I may remind him, is to inform the prisoner not only whether any warrants are outstanding against him but whether it is intended to bring any charges against him. The only way that the courts could ever see that this was done would be to see that the Secretary of State had inquired of every police force that could do this. Even if it was on their computer, which is unlikely unless they decided to press a charge, it would not be on the central criminal record.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggests that I live out of touch with what is going on in this sphere. I have to tell him. however, that if the Home Secretary could not show that this had been done, it is my understanding that he would not be able to satisfy the courts. The noble Lord may be suggesting that we should have some central computer which lists not only every known criminal but also every known suspect, and have different files for those whom it is proposed to charge, those whom it may be proposed to charge and those whom it has been decided not to charge. I think that this would bring Big Brother a long step closer to Scotland Yard. I am surprised that any urgency in that direction should come from the Liberal Benches and the SDP. However, I must not try to needle noble Lords opposite to their feet. I think that what we propose is eminently reasonable and that what the noble Lord proposes goes far beyond that. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is living in the Victorian era or whether he remembers the remark of one of his right honourable friend's predecessors, Sir William Harcourt, who said, after being told of the way that prisoners were putting on weight:
"My prisoners will grow so fat, it seems a positive cruelty to release them".
Here, we are talking about not releasing prisoners but whether they should be brought back to the United Kingdom in full knowledge of any charges that may be pending against them. I must say that the way that this debate has gone has surprised me. I thought, like the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, and like my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the police had computers that were able to communicate with one another. Contrary to what the noble Lord, the Minister, supposes, I am not against that. I believe in the preservation of law and order, the noble Lord the Minister may be surprised to know. I am in favour of the police having modern technology available to them which enables them to prevent and detect crime. I would have assumed naturally that if someone is arrested in South Yorkshire and taken to a police station there, it does not require an enormous effort by the officers concerned to ascertain whether he is wanted on charges in London. Wales or Scotland. I am sure that those facilities must be available to the police and that it is not a question of laboriously sending carrier pigeons to 52 other police forces in England and Wales plus a few more in Scotland, as the noble Lord has described.

633
But what we are talking about in the amendment is "all reasonable steps". If the information was not available from the police national computer, which I think the noble Lord mentioned himself at the end of his remarks, then it would be reasonable that the Minister would not be able to provide this information to the person who was coming back from abroad. We are not asking him to do something which is enormously complicated. We are simply asking him to notify the prisoner in these rare cases where charges may be brought against a person who is perhaps totally innocent, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, so that he can make his decision on whether to come back to the United Kingdom in the light of that information. I do not intend to pursue this point this afternoon. I simply make these few brief remarks in the hope that some honourable gentleman in another place will take up the cudgels where we have left off. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
.[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
5.21 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of the Secretary of State refusing to agree under section 1(1)(b) above to the proposed transfer of a prisoner into the United Kingdom, such refusal shall be in writing and accompanied by a statement of reasons and shall be notified to the prisoner in his own language.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intentionally stayed out of the last debate not only because my noble friend Lord Melchett with his usual skill said everything that I would have said, but because I thought that if I kept away from the barbs which seemed to be flying from the Liberal and SDP Benches to the Minister and from the Minister back to those Benches, it may very well be that when I moved my next amendment the Minister would be somewhat more considerate to me. I move that amendment now and I do so with, as I have said, some optimism.
At the Committee stage it was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who I believe moved the amendment. It seems as though there is a great partnership being worked out whereby people who did not move amendments last time are now moving them and are being supported by those who did so on the last occasion. But if it is all for a good cause, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate it.
The central point here is made very definitely from the experience of the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad who, as I am sure my noble friends agree—and I said this on the last occasion—have been very industrious, very energetic and very idealistic in furthering their objects and in briefing Members of your Lordships' House so that they can contribute intelligently to this debate. They assure me that they have very definite experience of cases where decisions have been made in regard to prisoners abroad by authorities over here, and the authorities over here have perfectly innocently acted on completely wrong information about the previous convictions of the people about whom they were talking. When this society has gone into the matter and has been able on behalf of these prisoners to show the authorities what the truth is. the authorities have
634
admitted their error. Although it is absolutely tragic that the Secretary of State might once in 10 years be in the dilemma of not wanting to state the reasons for a refusal because it might in some way be an embarrassment or create difficulties, it would be much more of a hardship for there to be one case in 10 years where somebody is refused permission, the reasons are not given to him, and if only those reasons had been given to him he would have been able to get rid of those reasons by showing that their basis was not correct.
So the whole purpose of the amendment—and I can say it in one sentence—is to see that reasons for the refusal are given in order that the prisoner may have an opportunity of commenting on them and possibly putting right an error of fact. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I said at the Committee stage when an amendment along these lines was proposed. I see no problem in accepting that the Secretary of State's decision should be communicated in writing since written communication with the other state concerned would obviously be necessary. But I doubt the need for this to be a statutory requirement. Nor do I think we need to object to the suggestion that a refusal should be given in the prisoner's own language. We do not consider it acceptable, however, that the Secretary of State should be required to state his reasons for refusing. As I promised at the Committee stage, we have considered whether it might be possible to adopt a different approach to inward and to outward transfer. We have, however, I regret to tell your Lordships, concluded that such a distinction is not feasible. Given that disclosure of the Secretary of State's reasons for refusal in a case of either inward or outward transfer might involve revealing information or sources of intelligence related to criminal activities or matters of national security, the Government cannot agree that reasons for refusal should be given.
The present amendment concerns only inward transfers. I made it clear at both Second Reading and the Committee stage that the Secretary of State will not normally withhold his consent unless there are compelling reasons of public policy for so doing. Instances of refusal will, therefore, be extremely rare and it is true to say that they will be even rarer in the case of British citizens seeking inward transfer than in cases of foreign criminals seeking outward transfer, especially as British citizens would in any case have the right to return to the United Kingdom on their release from prison abroad. Even so, despite the likely rarity of cases of refusal, an obligation to disclose reasons might work contrary to the national interest in some cases and this is a risk that we are not prepared to take. I say that with regret in view of the great lengths to which the noble Lord went in order to put me in a good mood to receive his amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am just a tiny bit puzzled. It is a long time since the Committee stage and I have not re-studied the Bill. But does it anywhere say that the prisoner abroad is to be informed at all of a refusal? I cannot find it. It seems to me that if we have somebody in the type of regime about which we have been talking which is hostile to this country, they might simply not tell him. Unless something is sent to him in writing he will not know

635
that he has been refused. If he is refused and there is an obligation to tell him—which I think must be in the Bill but I cannot find it—then it is reasonable that some reasons should be given.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a preliminary let me say that clearly a prisoner abroad does need to be informed of the result of his approach whether that approach is made to the government abroad or to the Government of this country. The noble Lord asks me where in the text of the Bill I can find this obviously necessary provision. I do not know what the inverse of a filibuster is. but we are in need of making haste and there is other business to come. I can now refer the noble Lord to the contents of the international agreement under which the Bill is drawn. I understand that that is sufficient to secure that this exchange of information shall take place. If I have reason to put a gloss on that reply, I shall write to the noble Lord and to the other two Front Benches.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful for that very neat reply.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I were as able to say something to your Lordships as the noble Lord is able with such skill to say nothing to your Lordships, I would be much more persuasive than I am. I wonder whether I can persuade the noble Lord the Minister to go some way with me on this matter. I think he will find that it is quite right that there is nothing in this Bill which makes it mandatory for the decision to be in writing. Indeed, at col. 35 on 5th March this year, when he was dealing with this amendment, he said:
"It is indeed our intention that the Secretary of State's decisions on requests for transfer should be conveyed in writing".
To me that meant—and I did not search further in the Bill—that he was merely stating a general intention which was a procedural one: he does not mind the communication in writing. Of course, that communication in writing is between country and country. We are talking about the communication in writing reaching the prisoner. As has been pointed out, there are some states which would not in fact ensure that the communication reached the prisoner.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred us to the convention, I have been looking it up, and Article 4(5) says that:
"The sentenced person shall be informed in writing of any action taken by the sentencing state or the administering state under the preceding paragraphs as well as of any decision taken by either state on a request for transfer".
The question is why that phraseology cannot be incorporated in the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Avebury. But I was concerned with the point that there could be cases—and I believe that this was a matter raised by someone else in the discussion—where, in spite of the fact that that is contained in a convention, the foreign state does not do it, and one is simply left with communications between two foreign offices about the failure to comply with the convention. By this amendment we want to
636
ensure that there is an obligation upon our Government to ensure that the prisoner abroad, who is a British prisoner or one intimately connected with this country, receives the refusal.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it might perhaps expedite the proceedings if I say that our objection is to giving the reasons in writing, not the information in writing. I am quite happy to undertake to consider between now and a later stage whether we could include the giving of the decision in writing. If we cannot come to a conclusion in this House, I am sure that we could do it in another place.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I was trying to do it by stages. I was saying that there should be no difficulty in that part of the amendment which refers to the statement in writing—the communication of that statement. Then we reach the point where the Minister cannot help us at the moment, which is the question of stating reasons.
The Minister said that what worried him about that is the fact that aspects of public policy could be involved. Before we reach the next and penultimate stage of this Bill, I wonder whether the Minister would consider an amendment which brings in the elements with which he is satisfied as well as a statement in the Bill that reasons would be given unless public policy dictates otherwise? I am trying to move towards the Minister in order to meet his exception. I am trying extremely hard to protect the prisoner against the errors, about which I was speaking, which would be so unjust. If the reason was merely that he had a whole string of convictions, so the Secretary of State thought, but in fact they belonged to another completely different person, and the prisoner was able to show the Secretary of State that that was the position, obviously that would not be a matter of public policy and, to that extent, I would be covering the position. If the noble Lord the Minister would kindly agree to consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, I shall most willingly withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I have already conceded the first half of what the noble Lord asks. We shall look at the written decision. As to reasons under certain circumstances, I shall of course not refuse to look at that; and I shall look at it. I suspect that there may well be difficulties in that if we are talking about cases, which no doubt will be rare, dealing with national security, the very refusal to give reasons is a declaration that the authorities are on to something which they would not wish to declare. However, that is a hypothetical argument. I need to take advice on it. Therefore, the noble Lord may wish to withdraw his amendment until I have done so. However, I do not want to make him too optimistic.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with what shred of optimism I am left with after those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of subsection (2C) above, where notice of withdrawal of consent is received by the Secretary of State after the issue of the warrant but the withdrawal itself took place prior to the issue of the warrant, the warrant shall be treated as invalid.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment of a perfectly simple kind. Under subsection 1(3) it is quite clearly stated that once consent has been given and the warrant issued, consent cannot then be withdrawn. Nobody questions that. Our legal advisers tell us that the Bill is silent on a situation which could easily arise, whereby the prisoner would withdraw his consent before the warrant had been issued but his withdrawal of consent would reach the Secretary of State after the warrant had been issued. With international communications, that is perfectly possible.
This amendment is tabled to make sure that in those circumstances the Secretary of State would accept the withdrawal. It is a very simple point and I think that it is correct. I do not think that it is elsewhere in the Bill and I am inclined to think that it ought to be included. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that he brought this concern to the Committee, and I fear that my answer will be very much as it was then. Perhaps I can make it a little clearer. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 does not refer to the timing of notification of the withdrawal of consent to the Secretary of State. It refers to the timing of the withdrawl of consent itself. Under the Bill as now drafted, the validity of the warrant will therefore, among other things, depend upon the chronology of events.
If the prisoner withdrew his consent before the issue of the Secretary of State's warrant, as a matter of law the warrant would already be invalid, because one of the requirements for the issue of the warrant would not have been met. Even if notification of withdrawal of consent reached the Secretary of State several days after the issue of the warrant, this would not affect the position in law and the warrant would still be invalid. I think that that is what the noble Lord wishes to achieve, and it is in fact what is in the Bill.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say where the phrase "withdrawal of consent" is defined in the Bill? So far as I can see, that terminology is not defined anywhere in the legislation, and it is that which gives rise to the doubt which prompted this amendment both at the Committee stage and again now. Without its being clear at what stage the withdrawal of consent will have been deemed to take place, given that it is not defined, it seems to me that the need for this amendment remains.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I answer with a little hesitation that it is not necessary to have that phrase on the face of the Bill. It is a matter of fact in each case that the existence of the warrant is lawful only if the consent of the prisoner pre-exists it. If the prisoner withdraws that, it no longer has the prisoner's consent
638
and therefore the legality of the warrant fails. It may be possible to put that in more legalistic and watertight language, and I shall put it on paper for the noble Lord and, if it is his wish, for the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful and I certainly shall not press the amendment. Our legal advisers do not agree with this, and I should like the noble Lord to look at this matter very carefully because our legal advisers are very careful people. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) In the case of a transfer into the United Kingdom pursuant to this section or section 4 below no criminal charges in respect of offences allegedly committed by the prisoner prior to his transfer into the United Kingdom shall be brought in the United Kingdom unless either:

(a) notice of liability to be so charged has been given to the prisoner pursuant to subsection (2B) above prior to his giving his consent to the transfer; or

(b) the alleged involvement of the prisoner in any offence with which he is to be charged after his transfer was not known to the Secretary of State prior to the said transfer.

( ) Nothing in subsection (5A) above shall affect the right of the private citizen to bring proceedings of any sort against a prisoner.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have an idea that, having debated Amendment No. 10, this amendment ought not to be moved. Therefore, I do not move it.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Transfer into the United Kingdom]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with your Lordships' leave, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18.
Amendment No. 16: Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("it") to end of line 18 and insert ("satisfies the following two conditions that is to say—

(a) it is a provision with respect to the detention of a person in a prison, a hospital or any other institution; and

(b) it is a provision which at the time the warrant is issued may be contained in an order made either—

(i) in the course of the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction by a court in the part of the United Kingdom in which the prisoner is to be detained; or

(ii) otherwise than by a court but for the purpose of giving effect to an order made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above.

( ) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above what provisions are appropriate for giving effect to the international arrangements mentioned in that paragraph, the Secretary of State shall, to the extent that it appears to him consistent with those arrangements to do so, have regard to the inappropriateness of the warrants containing provisions which—

(a) are equivalent to more than the maximum penalties (if any) that may be imposed on a person who, in the part of the United Kingdom in which the prisoner is to be detained, commits an offence corresponding to that in respect of which the prisoner is required to be detained in the country or territory from which he is to be transferred; or

639

(b) are framed without reference to the length—

(i) of the period during which the prisoner is, but for the transfer, required to be detained in that country or territory; and

(ii) of so much of that period as will have been, or be treated as having been, served by the prisoner when the said provisions take effect.").

Amendment No. 17: Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("in") to end of line 24 and insert ("sub-paragraph (i) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (2)(b) above."). Amendment No. 18: Page 5, line 37, after ("(2)") insert ("(6)").
Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage I readily sympathised with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the obscurity of the language in subsection (2) of Clause 3. I undertook to consider whether this could be made clearer, though past experience forbade my being optimistic about this. I also undertook to consider whether arrangements for remission could be explicitly dealt with in the Bill. As to clarity, it has not I fear proved possible to go quite as far as your Lordships and I would perhaps have preferred. As your Lordships appreciate and have accepted, the Government must have a considerable degree of discretion in order to be able to negotiate acceptable transfer agreements with other countries. Some of them may have varying attitudes on this and on other questions relating to the repatriation of prisoners. Although, therefore. I think the amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 3 helps to make the existing provision somewhat easier to follow, I realise that the new subsection (2A) goes only part of the way towards satisfying the desire for more explicit provision which was expressed at the Committee stage.
Paragraph (a) of the new subsection does, however, require the Secretary of State to have regard to the maximum penalty (if any) that may be imposed in the United Kingdom for a similar offence, and paragraph (b) similarly registers the need for the time spent in custody before transfer to be taken into account, including any time treated as having been served—that is, in our terms, remission earned and pre-trial custody.
Although it has not been possible to be as explicit as some of your Lordships would have liked, I should point out that the Secretary of State's discretion under the Bill to impose custodial sentences by warrant is not completely unfettered. The power in Clause 3(2) can in all cases be exercised only to the extent that the relevant international agreements allow. That is clear from the terms of subsection (l)(c) of Clause 3.
It may afford some comfort to those of your Lordships who continue to feel uneasy about the scope of the Secretary of State's discretion and about the arrangements for remission if I explain to the House what is generally intended to happen in practice. The intention is that when a prisoner is being considered for transfer to the United Kingdom we shall establish with the other country what the total sentence was that was imposed by the overseas court, how much of that sentence has been served and, if appropriate, how much remission has been earned. On the basis of this information we shall agree with the other country precisely how much of the original sentence remains to be served and this will form the sentence to be served on transfer to the United Kingdom under the
640
authority of the Secretary of State's warrant, unless the relevant agreement provides otherwise.
Under the Council of Europe Convention the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom will be limited to the maximum available for a similar offence committed in the part of the United Kingdom to which the prisoner is transferred. Where we wish to have agreements with other countries which do not wish to participate in the convention we shall seek to negotiate terms which are as close as possible to those of the convention; and, in particular, we shall try to secure agreement to sentences to be served on transfer to the United Kingdom being limited to our maximum. We must be realistic, however, and anticipate that this will not be acceptable to all countries and that some are likely to insist on their sentences being enforced in full. The experience of other countries in this field suggests that we shall generally be able to insist that, after transfer to the United Kingdom, our own arrangements for remission and parole will apply. Remission will apply to the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom as specified in the Secretary of State's warrant; any remission earned before transfer will already have been taken into account in fixing the sentence in the warrant. For the purposes, however, of calculating one third of sentence for eligibility for parole it should generally be possible to take account of the total time spent in custody, including the time served before transfer. Paragraph 2 of the schedule to the Bill enables this to be provided for in the Secretary of State's warrant. My Lords, I think that that may be as much as your Lordships wish to know of this.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has conveyed a favour not only upon this House but upon the English language in having changed the old Clause 3(2), which was absolutely meaningless, to the clause he now brings before us. For that we are indebted to him. The chief mischief which we were trying to get at in clarifying that clause was the very one of which the noble Lord the Minister has spoken; namely, that it would be untenable that we should be imposing upon someone who was brought back to this country a sentence of imprisonment which exceeded the maximum according to our own law for precisely the offence of which he has been convicted.
I do not think I can carry this any further in view of what the noble Lord the Minister has said as to the difficulties that exist in the matter. I can only hope—and it will be on the record of this House—that every effort will be made by the Government when negotiating these agreements that there should be a mutuality. There are many cases, of course, where foreign governments might have less of a maximum sentence than we have. If there could be that mutuality so that in no case was a transferred prisoner put to more of a maximum sentence than his native country had, then I think we would all be satisfied. With the noble Lord's assurance on this matter, I think I must leave it there.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am happy to say that we shall always seek to achieve the best terms we can in the terms which the noble Lord has suggested.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 16,17 and 18.
[Printed earlier: cols. 638–639.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Temporary return]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, leave out lines 21 to 25 and insert—
("( ) A warrant issued under this Act containing, with respect to provisions contained in an earlier warrant, any such requirement as is referred to in subsection (2) above shall provide that any period during which the prisoner is out of the part of the United Kingdom in which the provisions contained in the earlier warrant have effect and is in custody, is to be treated (except to such extent as may be specified in the warrant in order that effect may be given to the international arrangements in question) as a period during which the prisoner is detained under the provisions contained in the earlier warrant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment gives effect to the desire expressed at the Committee stage that the Bill should provide specifically that time spent in custody outside the United Kingdom by a prisoner temporarily returned to the country of conviction for an appeal hearing should count towards the time to be served in the United Kingdom. In considering the implications of such a provision, we have encountered the problem that in some countries it is the practice that time spent in custody pending the outcome of an appeal does not count towards the sentence to be served.
Clearly it might not be acceptable to such countries that the United Kingdom should give the prisoner credit for such time contrary to their own practice. It has therefore been necessary to build an appropriate qualification into the Amendment. This will allow the warrant for temporary transfer to specify to what extent the time in custody outside the United Kingdom will not count towards the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom where the international agreements so require.
It is our intention to credit such time whenever the international arrangements permit, but your Lordships will understand that discretion is necessary in order to avoid our not being able to meet the requirements of other countries and hence denying prisoners the chance of transfer home altogether.
If your Lordships will permit me, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 in my name, and with Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 27 in the names of noble Lords opposite.
Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("(if any)").
Amendment No. 26:
Page 8, line 37, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall not be required to make any arrangement under subsection (2) above if it appears to him unreasonable to do so having regard to the means of the prisoner and to the impracticability of recovering the said amount, whether immediately or at some future time, from the prisoner or from any other source.").
Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 taken together would prevent the Government from taking action to recover a prisoner's travel costs until after his transfer, and would also remove the possibility of expenses being recovered from anyone but the prisoner. Amendment 27 seeks to amend the Government Amendment 26
642
by omitting the words "from the prisoner or from any other source".
If I may take Nos. 23 and 25 first, their effect would of course undermine the Government's general policy on this issue which I sought to explain when speaking to our amendments. We believe very firmly that in general a prisoner who can afford to pay his return costs should be made to do so, and that he should therefore pay before transfer or sign an undertaking to pay after transfer. To restrict the Government's powers to recover costs after transfer would remove, as I think noble Lords must be well aware, a great deal of its effective leverage over a prisoner actually to commit himself to payment.
I make no apology for taking that line. It is in no way harsh to seek payment, or an undertaking, before transfer from those who can afford it or are likely to have the means at some future time. Of those whose circumstances are such that payment at any stage is obviously impracticable, my Amendment No. 26 fully takes care. As to Amendment 25, I cannot understand why noble Lords should seek to prevent persons acting on behalf of the prisoner from contributing directly to his costs. The clause as amended by my amendments would simply enable arrangements to be made for the recovery of expenses from, for example, a prisoner's parents rather than from himself.
There can be no question of the clause imposing any kind of involuntary obligation on these people if they do not want to pay. Nothing in the clause can compel them to do so. All the amendment would do would be to remove a potential source of contributions, and I do not believe that that is in the best interests of prisoners abroad. I must, therefore, resist these amendments.
On Amendment No. 27—
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. I am sure he is feeling under a lot of pressure as regards time as this Report stage may be taking longer than the Government originally envisaged. We are dealing with an important Bill, one that was started in this House, and it seems to me that there is some disadvantage in taking all these amendments together. They raise rather different points and if they are not debated separately those of us who are moving them do not have the opportunity to speak twice. For my part I should like to take Amendment No. 27 separately for those reasons, despite the fact that I am sure the noble Lord is being leaned on by others to try to speed us up.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely within his rights. As I have not yet expatiated on Amendment No. 27, I will not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Revocation etc. of warrants]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 20:
[Printed earlier: col. 619.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move, my Lords.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 21:
[Printed earlier: col. 609.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
Clause 7 [Expenses.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-sections (2A) and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am now in some confusion and if I repeat myself I hope your Lordships will forgive me. In speaking to this amendment I hope your Lordships will be content if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26. Also I am sure that the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, will not wish me to speak to Amendment No. 27, so I shall consider Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 and if I allude to Amendment No. 27 I hope he will forgive me if I come back later.
We have carefully studied the remarks of noble Lords at the Committee stage on the recovery of the travel costs of prisoners transferred to the United Kingdom. We concluded that what is appropriate is an amendment which does two things: it must leave no doubt about the Secretary of State's general duty to seek to recover the prisoner's travel costs and it must make it clear that he is not obliged to make arrangements for recovery of these costs when he is satisfied that the recovery before transfer or at any future date is impracticable. I believe these amendments achieve that dual purpose.
We consider it necessary to take a firm line on the recovery of prisoners' travel costs because it would be ridiculous if they could get a free trip home while stranded, but law-abiding British tourists had to pay their fares back in full. It is appropriate, therefore, that the Secretary of State should have a duty to recover these costs and should in all but the most exceptional circumstances take steps to ensure that they are paid before transfer or that a signed undertaking promising payment after transfer is obtained. We do not accept that merely because a prisoner does not have the means to pay before transfer, and does not have assets in the United Kingdom from which he could repay on return to the country, the requirement to sign an undertaking to repay his travel costs should be waived. It should not be assumed that a prisoner of working age who is repatriated to the United Kingdom to complete his sentence will not, after his release, obtain employment and earn his living. A great deal of commercial life at present depends on people undertaking to pay in the future things which they enjoy at the present.
We can foresee the occasional exceptional case where an elderly prisoner, or one suffering from a severe terminal illness and who is without assets, is to be repatriated and who clearly has no prospects of ever earning his living again. In a case of that sort it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion not to make any arrangements for recovery of the travel costs. I stress, however, that we intend such a waiver to be exceptional.
Perhaps I may now try to allay some of the anxieties which were expressed at Committee stage about the question of recovering the costs. First, the reference in Clause 7(2) to recovery from persons acting on a prisoner's behalf does not carry the implication that a prisoner's family or friends should somehow be compelled to pay his travel costs. This would not be feasible. The point is simply that where the prisoner can arrange for some else to pay, or where someone else offers to pay, or is willing to sign an undertaking to pay, that will be acceptable and the Secretary of State may arrange accordingly. Secondly, there will be no question of prisoners being left to languish in foreign gaols because they cannot pay or arrange for someone else to pay their travel costs before their transfer. As I have made clear, a signed undertaking from the prisoner or someone else to repay after the prisoner's return to the United Kingdom will be acceptable. Furthermore it is not the intention that interest should be charged while the debt is outstanding. This would clearly be inappropriate, given that prisoners would be returning to the United Kingdom to serve a gaol sentence during which they would have no significant earnings.
I hope that that is both clear and presented in a form which is acceptable to your Lordships.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone a long way towards meeting some of the criticisms we made at Committee stage, but I still have a residual worry which I will come to when I move Amendment No. 27. But I urge the noble Lord, however pressed we are for time, to bear in mind that we are not always dealing with people who have been fairly imprisoned. If I have the noble Lord's attention, he said, yet again, that all the cases we shall be dealing with under this Bill will in some way be less deserving than a stranded tourist. But that will not be the case where people have been incarcerated for no reason in quite unjust circumstances. In those circumstances there may be much stronger arguments for paying for their travel costs back to this country than there would be for a stranded tourist.
I make this point because I hope the noble Lord and his advisers will bear this point in mind when they deal with this Bill and the amendments to it in another place. They have consistently overlooked the fact that we are dealing in this Bill with people being transferred to this country and not necessarily people who, in our terms, are prisoners. We are dealing with people suffering from mental health problems and with people who may have been incarcerated quite unjustly and unfairly. It seems to me that if we had started off by changing the title of the Bill as some of us proposed the noble Lord might have stopped slipping into this fundamental error quite so often.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it would be appropriate if I said one or two things about Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 at this stage. I must first thank the noble Lord for his efforts to meet us half way on these points, even if I am left a little confused about how to reconcile some of the things that the noble Lord has said and the amendment we now have on the Marshalled List.
For instance, at Committee stage the Minister told us that he could not explain precisely how the

645
Government would take steps to assure themselves of the fact that the prisoner was broke. But today the Minister has said that even if he is broke he will still be asked to sign an undertaking because he can come back to the United Kingdom and after his release at the end of his sentence he will be expected to earn money and to repay the cost of his fare out of that income. As I understand it, it is not so much a question of ascertaining the means of the prisoner or of his relatives at the point where the transfer is contemplated, because if he is not being asked to pay cash but merely to sign an IOU then the operation of this clause depends on his future earning ability.
The noble Lord mentioned in passing that the only cases where it would be inappropriate or unreasonable to try to recover the expenses would be where a person was retired or incapacitated in some way and therefore would not be likely to return to the job market after his final release from custody in the United Kingdom. We need clarification on that point. Having ascertained that a prisoner is broke—by means that the noble Lord found difficult to define in discussing the matter (in col. 65 of Hansard) at Committee stage—the practice will be invariably to seek a written undertaking from the prisoner that he will repay the money. If that is to be the way the clause is treated, then there is all the more reason for Amendment No. 25 to strike out the words,
It would be the general rule that this money would be recovered from the prisoner himself and not from the assets at his disposal at the point of transfer from his future earnings, as the noble Lord has explained.
If I may come back to the first amendment, I am still a little anxious because the noble Lord the Minister used the word "leverage" in the remarks that he made. That was the point to which, the Minister will recall, we addressed ourselves when we initially raised the point on Committee. A person is in a very weak position if the consul approaches him while he is in a particularly unpleasant prison in Turkey or in Thailand, asks him if he will sign a piece of paper and represents to him that his chances of being transferred to a more humane environment depend on his agreement to this proposal. Therefore, more or less anybody would sign that document even if he is conscious of the fact that his ability to pay may be extremely limited, facing, as he does, a further period of some years in custody in the United Kingdom.
If I may come on to the second amendment, again, the noble Lord spoke on the last occasion of the rich uncles and aunts who might be expected to contribute to the fare. This afternoon he has referred only to parents. It is important for us to understand how far this obligation is going to be pressed. I have nephews and nieces in Australia who are extremely law-abiding but it is possible to imagine circumstances in which they might be convicted of an offence in, say, Turkey or Thailand and I should be very surprised, if not dismayed, if the Australian Government then sent me a bill for the fare to repatriate them to Melbourne or Canberra. I am sure that the noble Lord also may have nephews and nieces whom he can imagine being convicted unjustly in some foreign land and that he would then receive a demand for the cost of the fare—which it would be quite unreasonable to expect him to pay.
646
I think that we should know to whom the Government will look when in this clause they speak of persons acting on his behalf. Is it merely to his parents, as the noble Lord said this afternoon? If it is to other relatives, to what distance are they intending to look? Is there any other interpretation, apart from relatives, that we can apply to this particular phrase? I think it is unlikely that we shall get far this afternoon. The Minister, as I have said, went some way towards meeting my intentions and those of my noble friend when he moved the matter on Committee. Perhaps he can throw some further light on these questions before we leave the two amendments to which I have addressed myself this afternoon.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, this is not the time to go into detail. What I am concerned with is that not having enough money should not be a reason for not being repatriated. I think the noble Lord agrees with that. As far as I am concerned, so long as the Government have no right to put pressure on my relations and all that I have to do is to sign an IOU, I do not think that is unreasonable. I think that it would be most unreasonable if they had recourse to any of my relations. If you sign an IOU, you come home and serve another three years in the "nick", and afterwards (if you do not want to pay) you go bankrupt. It is simple. Anybody would rather do that than stay in prison in Thailand.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. He made my principal point for me. It is not unreasonable if somebody is going to be flown back—and let us not always pick on Thailand; it is a country with many merits—from some far distant and hostile country where he is incarcerated in durance vile and he is told that that foreign government has agreed with our Government that he can be transferred home; that the terms of the warrant are such and such; that he will serve such a length of time, subject to such and such remission and consideration for parole on such and such a date; and that the air ticket will cost so much—not the air ticket of the escort; but just the air ticket of the prisoner. If he says, "Oh yes! You can forget that", I do not think we ought to be in a position of being forced then to repatriate him at public expense.
To the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I would say that there may be cases—not, I suppose, too many but there may be some—where the prisoner is no less deserving than the stranded tourist who has lost everything in an earthquake. But he is no more deserving, either. And if the stranded tourist is required to sign such an undertaking, I think it possible that the stranded prisoner should as well. As far as payment is concerned, as I understand it, anybody who is prepared to undertake to pay or to pay will serve.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 24:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 26:
[Printed earlier: col. 641,]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 37. at end insert—
("( ) the Secretary of State shall not be required to make any arrangements under subsection (2) above if it appears to him unreasonable to do so, having regard to the means of the prisoner and to the impracticality of recovering the said amount, whether immediately or at some future time.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27. The point here, as the noble Lord. Lord Elton, has already said, is simply the advantage of deleting from the Government amendment at some future stage the last few words, "or from any other source". I must say that the argument in favour of this deletion seems to have got stonger on listening to what the noble Lord has said about previous amendments. He said, as I understand it, that a signed statement from a prisoner to the effect that he will eventually repay the fare will be sufficient. I find that encouraging. The noble Lord's other remarks about the time period in which the Government would aim to collect the fare and the lack of any interest charges was also encouraging. I hope that the noble Lord is aware how grateful we are to him for the distance he has moved to meet these real concerns.
Having got that far, it seems to me very difficult for him to justify leaving in the Bill an express provision which would allow the Government, I am afraid, to lean on (if not to say, put quite undesirable pressure on) relatives, who may be quite distant relatives, of adults imprisoned abroad. It may be that there are people who are relatively wealthy related to a prisoner in an overseas country and it would be by far the easiest source from which the Government could obtain the money to repay the fare and by far the quickest. After all, if somebody has to return to this country and serve a long sentence before they are going to be in a position to repay the fare, the difference in value to the Government between that and getting it from a wealthy uncle, cash in advance or soon after transfer, is going to be considerable. I cannot see the justification for that unless it is to give the Government an opportunity to lean on relatives and say, "Look! If you do not cough up, we are very unlikely to transfer your nephew or cousin back to this country". I hope the noble Lord will convince me that that is (a) impossible on the face of the Bill and (b) that there is some other good reason for transferring the person back.
While on my feet and talking about the costs of transfer and whether or not they should be always charged to the prisoner, I will have to say to the noble Lord that there will be cases where people incarcerated abroad will have a much stronger claim to be repatriated freely to this country than the tourist who has lost all his possessions in an earthquake. I doubt whether the American Government felt it necessary to charge the American hostages held in Iran the cost of the air ticket home. It is possible that people held in similar circumstances (although perhaps not quite so dramatic) will be transferred back to this country under this legislation. It is important for the Government to recognise that there will be people
648
coming under this legislation, people whom we all would feel it quite unjust to charge the cost of bringing them home, let alone their relatives if they were not able to pay. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give some justification to those words, "or from any other source", which does not have the rather sinister connotation which, I am afraid, is still left in my own mind.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his recognition of what we have provided under our amendment. We are at a point at which I find it very difficult to do more to assist the noble Lord, or at least to assist him to accept what we propose in the Bill. Certainly there will be very deserving cases and the Bill ought to take account of deserving cases as well as of undeserving cases, and it does give the Secretary of State some measure of discretion.
The noble Lord would like us to go further, but I do not see how we could do so without accepting it as a principle in the Bill that there should be some expectation that an expatriate prisoner, if I may so term him. should be flown home at public expense on certain occasions. I think that must remain a question of discretion. I can undertake to consider with my colleagues the extent to which administratively one could secure that what the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, describes as "leverage"—indeed, I used the word myself—is not unfairly exercised. All we are seeking to achieve is that the public shall be repaid for the expense of repatriation. I cannot think that there will be many occasions on which an able-bodied prisoner abroad would not be prepared to pay off the cost of his air ticket in order to get back to England to serve his sentence there. So I think that the occasions on which what the noble Lord sees as an injustice might arise are extremely limited, and I cannot believe that my right honourable friend would not recognise them when they occurred.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty because I do not like disagreeing with my noble friend at all and I certainly do not disagree with him as regards policy; but as my name has been attached to this amendment I think I must make something quite clear. I thought that what we were discussing—and I was with my noble friend completely—were cases where, quite apart from the question of means, it would be quite wrong and unreasonable for the Secretary of State to charge the expenses of the travel. We are speaking to an amendment. I notice, which is limited to the unreasonableness on the question of means, and not the circumstances of the case to which the noble Lord has addressed himself with considerable eloquence and feeling.
I agreed with him and I think it is only honourable to say that this amendment in fact limits the discretion on unreasonableness to the question of means, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was saying (and, as I have said, I agreed with him) he did not think it ought to be limited to the question of means. It ought to be in cases where the Secretary of State finds it unreasonable to ask, or, in regard to means. where it is found ridiculous to "chase it". I think we owe

649
ourselves a duty, before we leave this amendment, to "come clean", if I may use that colloquialism, and to say that is what we mean; and at the next stage of the Bill we ought really to bring forward an amendment to say what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said so well.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There are in fact two points and the amendment covers only one of them although I covered both in what I said. The first is the case where it would be quite unreasonable to charge people for bringing them home. The Iranian hostages, if there was an equivalent situation in this country and if they were transferred back here under the provisions of this Bill, would be a case in point. Although the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested that the Bill gave the Secretary of State discretion in such a case, I must say that on the face of it I cannot see that it does. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree to write to us on that matter, rather than delaying our proceedings now. If I may say so, he is nodding his head, and that is on the record, so I think we can leave that one.
The second point is the question of whether it would be reasonable, when any independent adult is imprisoned abroad with limited means at his disposal and with the possibility of serving a long sentence here, for the Bill to contain powers to enable the Government to go to a rich relative and say: "Look, if you want Cousin Johnny home, why not agree to pay his air fare and then he will come back very quickly?" It is that pressure which I think would be impossible to resist although it may be difficult in some cases if the connection between the adult abroad and the adults in this country was a tenuous one with perhaps a broken-off relationship many years before. But the pressure is going to be extremely difficult to resist, and I think unwarranted. I am afraid the last few words in the amendment give rise to the possibility of that pressure being applied; and it seems to me to be something to which the noble Lord has not yet really addressed his mind. I hope that we shall be able to do something further on this before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord about discretion and I will also write to him about the second matter which he has raised. Of course, what will usually happen will be that young Johnny in prison in some distant clime will say: "Go to Aunt Margaret and she will pay". The representatives of the authorities will go to Aunt Margaret and she will either pay or not pay, and then it is up to Johnny to put it right. But I can see what the noble Lord is after, and I will write to him.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, what Aunt Margaret should do is to write back to Johnny and say: "You sign an IOU and we will talk about it when you get out of prison".
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for offering to look at both points, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Annual reports by the Secretary of State.
. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament annually a report by him on the discharge by him during the preceding year of his responsibilities under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to a point which we debated at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that he would at least look at the possibility of providing some information, although he did not go so far as to say he would be happy to accept the duty to report annually to Parliament. The justification for this is really a justification for the length of time that your Lordships have spent on the Report stage this afternoon and indeed on the Committee stage before it. It might be worth reiterating that this Bill introduces very sweeping discretionary powers in the hands of the Secretary of State—powers to imprison people in this country for things that are not offences in this country, powers to imprison people in this country for much longer periods than are provided for by the law in this country and powers to do things which we would not accept in other circumstances.
I think that we have all accepted the need for the very wide and sweeping powers and for them to lie in the hands of the Secretary of State, and also for the Secretary of State to have very considerable discretion in the way that they are exercised. But our acceptance of those points should not blind us to the fact that we are dealing with very major powers which go right outside the rules of natural justice and other matters which normally govern the power of the state to incarcerate people in prison and to do other things by way of punishment for activities they have been responsible for. It is because of these very wide powers and the novel features of the powers in this Bill that we have rightly taken some time to debate them today and at the Committee stage. I think it would also be right for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the way those powers are exercised.
The noble Lord said at the Committee stage that once we had got this up and running there would be very few cases for concern. I do not think that the noble Lord, or those of us who might want to read the report, would object if in some years it was a pretty brief document. That does not seem to me to detract from the main point at issue, which is that the Secretary of State wil be taking decisions with no trial by jury, with no publicity and with none of the features which we normally consider to be an absolute necessity before people are locked up in prisons in this country. None of those safeguards will apply, and in those circumstances it seems to me the least that Parliament can do is to insist on having a regular report about the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised these very wide but, in my view, justified discretionary powers. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I got the impression at the Committee stage that your Lordships would be satisfied without an annual report so long as the availability of relevant statistics would provide the means for monitoring the working of the repatriation arrangements. I therefore undertook to tell your Lordships at this stage what we would be doing about

651
this. We have it in mind to keep fairly comprehensive statistics for at least the first five financial years of the Act's operation. Separate statistics will be kept for the three United Kingdom jurisdictions—England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and for each foreign or Commonwealth country involved. The numbers of outward and inward transfers requested, agreed and refused will be recorded.
In the case of inward transfers, separate figures will be kept for British citizens and others. Transfers which are refused will be analysed according to whether refusal was by the United Kingdom, the other state or the prisoner. Inward and outward transfers of persons under 18 will be separately recorded and inward cases will be analysed by the type of establishment to which they are assigned.
Transfers from hospital and straight to hospital will be separately identified. We will record all cases when the consent is given on behalf of the prisoner under Clause 1(2)(b). Cases in which the warrant provides for a sentence in excess of the United Kingdom maximum for the offence will be specially noted, as will cases where variation of the warrant is necessary for any reason.
Statistics relating to costs for inward transfers will also be maintained. The costs of escorts and of prisoners will be separately recorded, and in relation to prisoners' costs information about recovery before transfer and undertakings to repay after transfer from prisoners or others will be included, as will any cases where recovery is waived. Any instance of temporary return to the country of conviction will be noted. I hope your Lordships will agree that this will be an effective array of statistical information which will be available on request and placed, I think I can say, in the Libraries of your Lordships' House and another place, and they should provide all the information needed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will accept that that is not what I asked for at the time of the Committee stage; but I think that it is a very satisfactory reply. I think we are all quite capable of writing in for information of that kind.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone a very long way to meet my point, and I am again grateful to him, as I think all of us have been through-out the Report stage on this Bill, for the amount of help he has given the House in meeting points that have been raised. He said, a little uncertainly, that this information would be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. That is on the record and he has not qualified the remark. I assume that that will be on an annual basis, because the noble Lord referred to statistics being kept annually. As we leave the Bill, the thought that we will have all this information placed in the Library on an annual basis to allow us to see the results of our work and the effect of the decisions which the Secretary of State has made is a very useful commitment by the Government, and I thank the noble Lord very much.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before we leave this Bill, may I say what a pleasure it has been to work on a
652
piece of legislation where the Home Office has been co-operative. It has been a most unusual and refreshing experience and one that contrasts sharply with so many of the other dealings that one has with the noble Lord's department. I do not want to introduce a sour note, but the wealth of statistics which he has now promised us certainly makes one envious when one thinks of how difficult it is to pry statistics out of the Home Office relating to prisoners in the United Kingdom, because always when one asks for those figures one is told that it is too expensive to collect them or that there is some other reason for not giving them.
This last amendment is the last of a long line on which the noble Lord has been extremely forthcoming and helpful to the House. We must express our gratitude to him for the way in which he has dealt with the Bill and for the improvements that have been made in it. I think that your Lordships have finished with the Bill in a much better form than it came to us, and that we have greatly reduced the amount of work left to do on it by another place.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I had the power to appoint the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to any ministry, it would be a great pleasure to appoint him to many of them; but I would not choose the Foreign Office or the Diplomatic Corps. May I, who in future will have to deal—as he will—with the Secretary of State through his very able representative in this House, and with officials of the Home Office, say how much I have been moved in the past by their co-operation and help, how I am absolutely overcome by the assistance that we have had on this occasion and how I look forward to many other Home Office Bills where I shall have exactly the same co-operation from them.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must just say that I have worked fairly closely with the Home Office for the past 30 years and I have had only about three really bad rows, which is a jolly good record.
Lord Elton: My Lords. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and, with your Lordships' leave, I would say that if there is any candidate for the Foreign Office or the diplomatic service it ought to be the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I must take this brief moment of your Lordships' time to refer to something which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, and I am grateful to him for his intention of withdrawing this amendment and for his kind remarks. I said something at the Committee stage when I think I unwittingly misled your Lordships.
I indicated that I thought the number of cases likely to be dealt with under the Bill would be of the order of two, three or four a year, once the initial backlog had been dealt with. I think I was right to stress that the numbers were unlikely to be large; but equally I think I was too optimistic, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has suggested. The fact is that it is impossible to estimate at this stage precisely what will be the number of cases per year, but I understand it is fairly certain that it will exceed a mere two or three and I am very sorry if I misled your Lordships.

653
If I may add some ashes to the sackcloth in which I now garb myself, I ought to add a word about a slip that I made in speaking about the definition of the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Bill, recorded at col. 69 of the Official Report. I think all of your Lordships will have realised this but it ought to be on the record. In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I indicated that, in practice, the Secretary of State in the Bill referred to the Home Secretary. That is the case in relation to transfers to and from England and Wales. I should have made it clear, however, that for the purpose of transfers to and from Scotland and Northern Ireland, responsibility under the Bill will fall respectively to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I regret the silly oversight in this matter which I made. Your Lordships have been so kind to me already that I am sorry to have to ask for your further indulgence. I can only say that I have found this an agreeable occasion, too.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am delighted that my amendment provided us with such an opportunity to be polite about each other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Bill
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a draft Bill which was drawn up by the Scottish Law Commission during its study of family law in Scotland. I think I can say that it comes from the other place with all-party support and indeed—in a procedure which we can perhaps regard as remarkable—the Second and Third Readings were taken on the nod without one word being spoken. But what is perhaps more important is that this Bill removes certain inconsistencies between Scottish law and the terms of Part IV of the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. We have already signed this convention but, apparently, we have not yet ratified it and in so far as these elements of Scots law are an obstacle, they will be removed by this Bill.
It is difficult today to realise the changes in relation to the law between husband and wife which have taken place in the past 100 years. We had a rather highly developed system of family life in Scotland, and the statute book has been very extensively changed to meet the modern status which we accord to women today. In many of the clauses of this Bill, we are really dealing with a situation which existed 100 or 150 years ago; and, accordingly, I sometimes find it a little difficult to explain the implications of the various clauses.
Clause 1 abolishes actions for breach of promise of marriage. This is already the position in England and, I understand, in Australia and New Zealand. I do not need to add a great deal. All I would say is that it is particularly anomalous that there should be a penalty for withdrawing from an engagement, whereas there is no penalty for withdrawing from a marriage. Such actions are, therefore, wholly anachronistic.
654
The first part of Clause 2 abolishes actions of adherence and is primarily intended to deal with desertion. It is clearly absurd that anybody should be compelled to live as either husband or wife by action of law. However, it was of value in deciding who was in desertion. This provision is not, however, necessary today and can be abolished. The second part of Clause 2 relates to the enticement of a spouse. Your Lordships may be interested to know that there is no recorded instance of such an action ever having been brought.
Clause 3 deals with the curatory of married women who are minors. This is clearly a breach of the equality of the sexes because it does not apply to men. It is also anomalous and quite unnecessary. Indeed, it is in conflict with the capacity of a woman to marry as a minor. If she is in a curatory condition, she will not be in a capacity to engage herself in marriage. This provision is altogether out of line with modern law.
Clause 4 deals with the choice of the matrimonial home. This provision was necessary in order to decide which of the two spouses was in desertion. It was left to the husband to choose which should be the matrimonial home. This rule is now rescinded; it is left to either party to decide. It is therefore left to the court to decide which of the two, the husband or the wife, is in desertion.
I turn now to the rules with regard to antenuptial marriage settlements. This was the only clause where I found that I needed some support for what it contains. Accordingly, I got in touch with Professor Love of the Department of Conveyancing at Aberdeen University and Dr. Clive of the Scottish Law Commission. May I make clear why it is that I believe that what amounts to the need for an antenuptial marriage settlement is no longer necessary and why marriage should no longer be regarded as an onerous consideration?
Many of us who have been trained in the law were brought up firmly in the belief that marriage was an onerous consideration and that it was important so to regard it. I should like to remind your Lordships, to quote Dr. Clive's words, that there was a time when this was necessary. First, it was necessary because donations between husband and wife could be recalled at any time. An antenuptial marriage settlement, which meant a settlement for a consideration of marriage, avoided the possibility of the recall of any gift or donation in marriage. Secondly, there was a considerable estate duty advantage in having a settlement of this character. Neither of those considerations now applies, partly because a woman now has control of her own finance, which in the middle of the 19th century was not the case, and partly because the estate duty advantage has now disappeared.
The real point at issue was whether, by making an antenuptial marriage settlement, you could avoid your creditors. In other words, you could put your funds into a settlement of this character and thus avoid having this money reclaimed. There was the further consideration that in a sense it implied that by making an antenuptial marriage settlement you were buying your way into marriage. This was an objectionable feature, to which certain ladies took exception. There is now very little advantage in making an antenuptial marriage settlement. Indeed, there is no difference between an antenuptial and a postnuptial settlement.

655
That is the advice I have been given, which I repeat to your Lordships. For that reason, Clause 5 seems to meet modern requirements.
Clause 6 deals with the abolition of a husband's remaining liabilities for his wife's debts incurred before marriage. This is out of date. The purpose of that rule of law was that when a man married a woman he took over all her finance, for which he was responsible. He also took over all the debts which she had incurred before the marriage. This was necessary at that time but it is clearly unnecessary today.
Clause 7 deals with what is called praepositura. This is a legacy of the past—of the time when the husband was responsible for the movable property of his wife. The result was twofold. First, she had no credit. Secondly, she could not be distrained or have what is called diligence against her. The result was that if she incurred debt she could not be responsible for it. However, it was obviously a matter of convenience that she should be able to deal with the daily household requirements. For this purpose a special rule of law was available: that she could call upon and use her husband's credit for buying what are called normal domestic requirements. She was in the position of household manager. That is no longer necessary, partly because the husband does not take over his wife's finance and partly because she can have diligence effected against her. For both of those reasons, therefore, praepositura is no longer necessary.
Clause 8 relieves the husband of any action at law in which his wife is engaged, for which he has no responsibility whatever. Again this goes back to the time when a wife's property was largely in the hands of her husband. If she was sued at law. it was quite clear that her husband would have to pay. That is no longer necessary. The removal of this liability on the husband is only right and proper.
The purpose of the Bill is very largely to bring the husband and wife into sexual equality. However, it is fair to say that it relieves the husband of a good many obligations which he otherwise would have to hold on behalf of his wife. On the whole, therefore, both husband and wife can be quite pleased with the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
6.39 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I have very little to say from these Benches, except to accord to this measure a very warm and wholehearted welcome and to express our appreciation of Lord Selkirk's presentation and admirably clear explanation of the provisions contained in the Bill. The principle of the Bill is admirable; it is concerned with bringing the law into line with the reality of the social and legal position of women in 1984. Who would want to quarrel with that?
The Bill effectively abolishes a number of quite long—some of them—and outdated rules. Not surprisingly, the consultations which the Scottish Law Commission had on the matter during 1982 and 1983 showed almost unanimous support for these provisions. I should like to pay tribute to the prepara-
656
tory work and the report of the Scottish Law Commission. It is an admirable body, which from time to time I have been inclined to criticise. I have absolutely no grounds for criticism of the commission's approach to this matter. I have read with great interest the commission's consultative document, so carefully and painstakingly prepared, as well as the report. I am sure that your Lordships will willingly give to this Bill a Second Reading.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I should begin by apologising for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of speakers. This oversight is entirely my fault. Instead of sitting in my room I went to the Library; and no one would think of looking for me in the Library. This Bill is part of the review of family law which the commission is undertaking. We should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for having taken this matter up in the House and for going through the clauses with his customary clarity. If someone else had been introducing this particular Bill, I expect that the noble Earl would have had something to say about one or two of the clauses—so when we come to Committee stage, I will look forward to hearing some of the noble Earl's own opinions, because he always enlivens with his individual aspect some of the matters which come before us.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has been very lucky in that he has had the Law Commission to prepare his Bill for him. If we look at the clarity and lucidity of this Bill, one finds none of the nonsense of having to refer to half a dozen different statutes. Each individual clause explains what the Bill is going to do. There may be some legal terms which are not familiar to everyone, but from the point of view of those who have been following family law. it is clear in the Bill what is being done. Let it be a model for the next roads Bill which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate introduces. Let him await the Law Commission and he will save himself an awful lot of trouble.
We should be grateful that this Bill is bringing the law up to date because it is antiquated. I do not know whether the News of the World and papers such as that will be throwing their hats in the air at the fact that breach of promise will no longer be available in Scotland. When one thinks of it, as it is so easy to break a marriage today, why should we make it difficult to break a promise of marriage? That would be quite ludicrous. It has been suggested in some of the criticisms of the commission that we are offered in respect of this subject that one cannot judge by the number of actual cases of breach of promise; that behind a marriage there may have been a threat. To my mind, a threat of breach of promise is not a very good base for a marriage. It is sensible to bring this aspect up to date.
So far as adherence is concerned, before we changed the law in relation to divorce, it was one of the preludes to divorce to prove desertion. That is out now and I am sure we are quite right to get rid of that. The noble Earl said that enticement had not been used, but I gather that that is not exactly true. I believe that the Law Commission stated that there is no recorded case of damages being awarded for enticement; that is not the

657
same thing. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will put us right on that particular point. It was the unanimous view of all those consulted that enticement should be abolished, and who are we to differ from those who are more concerned?
I agree, too, with what is being done in relation to the family home. Why should it be the husband's right to say where they shall live? All the changes that are being made here so well—if slightly belatedly—are in keeping with today's position. There may be some argument about the repeal of the husband's liability for his wife's debts. In recollection, I am familiar with this aspect because it was the shame of any woman to find what was known in Scottish working class terms as her husband "crying down his wife's credit". I gather that there could be a legal inhibition registered; but the usual form, certainly in Scottish working-class life, was for a husband to take an advertisement in the local newspaper announcing that he would not be responsible in future for any debts unless personally contracted. All the gossips knew that it was his wife he was getting at.
It did not always mean that the wife was a spendthrift and was recklessly running up bills. It might be that the husband was mean and did not always provide her with money. Whatever merits that might have had in the past, life has changed. Today it may be that the husband is unemployed and his wife is working; why should the husband be made responsible for her debts? Marriage is now accepted as being not so much of a contract but more a partner-ship based on give and take on both sides. It is right that liability should be abolished. Some husbands will regret the fact and some wives may regret it; but some husbands will like it. It is right and fair that this discrimination be ended and that we should depend on general law to sort matters out.
To my mind, we have done very well with this Bill. It is very well worded. I warned the noble Earl that I would go over every word of it, and I am surprised that he did not do so, because there are two changes from the draft Bill. One was necessary to change "1983" to "1984", because the Government did not quite come up to scratch and get this Bill passed last year. The other change is that, according to the Law Commission, the Bill would come into force one month after its passing. In the noble Earl's Bill—and he must take responsibility for this—it states that the Act shall come into force,
"at the end of the period of two months".
I hope that when the noble Earl is making his final remarks, he will tell us why there has been that change. Otherwise, I do not believe that anyone would object to making Scottish law much more realistic in respect of its attitude towards husband and wife.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have my name on the speakers' list either, but perhaps I may say a few words before my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate replies. When we are making what are really very substantial and radical changes to the law, it is perhaps appropriate to see what we are changing the law from. I wonder how many people are aware of the differences in the law that exist between England and Scotland at the present
658
time, yet there must be many tens of thousands of non-Scots in Scotland who are totally oblivious of what the law of husband and wife is. It would not be appropriate of course to ask my noble and learned friend to go through all the details of the law as it exists at the present time; but it would be at any rate a matter of interest, and I think a matter of importance, for us to know exactly what in fact the changes are.
It seems to me that we have been living in a good deal of ignorance about what in Scotland at the present time is the law governing our daily lives. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is shaking his head, denying that. He has probably moved in circles that discuss these things a great deal and knows exactly where he stands.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lord has been far too long in England?
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, that is so, but I started in Scotland and started with some presumptions as to what the law was there. I am quite certain that I was not aware of what the law was then. I think that it would be appropriate if my noble and learned friend could indicate, perhaps even in passing, how people regard the law in Scotland, what the assumptions are, how much is taken for granted, let us say, in Scotland at the present time, where changes have to be made and what effect they will have. It seems to me that the effect of the Bill has been very lucidly described as to what it is going to be but less emphasis has been placed on the changes that are being made. I think that that is important if only to mark the historic changes that are being made and to make clear the changes in custom, as well as in law, that we are dealing with in this Bill.
6.52 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make evident the Government's support for the Bill in this House. As has already been stated by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the purpose of it is to abolish a number of obsolete and discriminatory rules and actions in Scots law. While some of these rules may have had a useful function in the middle of the 19th century, it is evident that they are at variance with the very different legal and social position of married women today. Some of the rules reflect outdated assumptions about the personal responsibilities of married women and their capacity to act on their own behalf—notions which in this day and age may be regarded not only as archaic but also as objectionable and discriminatory. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said, the Scottish Law Commission's proposals for reform are based not only upon its own thorough study of this area, but also upon consultations which indicated almost unanimous support for its recommendations. I have therefore no reservation in recommending to the Members of your Lordships' House that they should support this Bill.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for undertaking to pilot this important Bill through your Lordships' House and to his honourable friend and kinsman and my honourable friend for doing so in

659
another place. I am also indebted to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has spoken, although, as he explained, his name was not down on the list of speakers. I entirely agree with what he said about the clarity of this Bill. The Law Commission is very much to be commended on the very clear terms in which the Bill is expressed. I shall be endeavouring as best I can to emulate those good qualities when I have the opportunity.
As has been done by other noble Lords, I, too, should like to put on record my appreciation of the work done on this Bill, and much else besides, by the Scottish Law Commission, commissioners and staff alike. I finally say to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the Law Commission is in the habit—and the report on which this Bill is based is no exception—of setting out the present law, the difficulties in the present law and what it is proposing by way of reform. It has done that clearly, and I would commend the underlying report to anyone who wishes to have a very clear account of the present law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has pointed out, there are two differences between this Bill and the Scottish Law Commission's Bill. The first is about the date on which it is actually being taken through Parliament. So far as the two months is concerned, I think that it has been generally agreed that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, two months after it has been enacted is a reasonable moment for an Act to come into force, so that everyone is clear about its terms before it actually takes effect. I think that that was agreed as a matter of general policy some time ago. I certainly entirely support this Bill.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I tell him that I had the greatest difficulty today in getting a copy of the Law Commission's report? I asked for it in the Printed Paper Office and they were unable to trace it. The request was put on the computer but defeated even that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord should try the Library.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, they were unable to give it to me. I eventually told the noble and learned Lord's office and they finally gave me it, but I did have difficulty. On this occasion it was not my own stupidity. They could not give it to me in the Printed Paper Office and they could not trace it in the Library. I just thought that the noble and learned Lord should know that, as he commended that report.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that information.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for their support. I should particularly like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, because he strongly congratulated the Law Commission on what it has done. I recall being very critical of the Law Commission. I wondered
660
what it was going to do. Was it going to short-circuit Parliament, or what were its activities? But what it has done is to turn out an enormous amount of detail. The details of this Bill itself could not have been found out by anyone except the students of learning who went through it with very great care. We are greatly in the debt of the Scottish Law Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, with his detailed eye. accused me of not knowing what had been changed in the Bill from the Law Commission. The first thing he pointed to was the date. The date changes automatically without any effort. Secondly, the two-month period was an amendment put in by the House of Commons. I did not think that it was of sufficient importance to draw to the attention of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked whether we could have a full picture of family law in Scotland. The truth is that it is pretty difficult, partly because of what existed in the middle of the 19th century. We had a much more developed system than they had in England, with all sorts of detailed legal rights of one kind and another which I do not think existed in England at all. To adapt that to an entirely new situation is a highly complicated business. This small Bill touches only on the very perimeter of it. I commend the Bill for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Appointment and duties of Disablement Commission]:
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("people who are") and insert ("either").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to the second amendment.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 20, at end insert ("or qualified to represent such disabled people, at least a quarter of the total being themselves disabled.").
They represent a way of amending the composition of the commission that is to be set up. It will be noticed from the Bill, as it now stands, that there is to be a commission consisting of at least eight but not more than 15 individuals. For the sake of argument, to make this concrete, may I talk in terms of a commission of 12? I do not say it will be that but let us talk in terms of a commission of 12. To be sympathetic with the disabled, one is inclined to start with the idea that half the commission should be disabled. Then one reflects that this covers the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, who would not be capable of playing a proper part in the commission. So I have brought forward a proposal

661
which I should like to make comprehensible by again taking this figure of a commission of 12. Under the plan that I am now proposing, out of 12 in a commission, six of them would have to be either disabled or representative of the disabled, and at least three—that is a quarter—would have to be themselves disabled. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like very briefly to support this amendment. It seems to have succeeded admirably in meeting both the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the representation of the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick in the commission and also the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that a substantial number of the members of the commission should be themselves disabled. I certainly think the noble Earl has the balance just about right now and I am very happy to support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we warmly support this amendment. The voice of the disabled, and in relation to the needs of the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, the voice of a near relative or a friend or those voluntary bodies which have evinced, shown and demonstrated an interest in the services for the handicapped, should be heard effectively in the commission. It would appear to us that the dialogue with the disabled should be accepted as central and should therefore be reflected in the commission. We consider that the amendment represents a considerable improvement and we are pleased to support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Longford.)
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I and other Members of your Lordships' House, who think as I do, consider it would be wrong to allow this Bill to leave this House with apparently unanimous approval.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, am I in order in asking the noble Baroness whether she will wait while I just say a few final words? I was proposing to say a few words and it may be that the noble Baroness would wish to comment on them adversely or otherwise.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, certainly.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I was not intending to keep silent altogether because I must at least begin by expressing gratitude to all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have given such close attention to this Bill, whether by attendance, speech, or both—and that refers to noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have been sympathetic and to those who have been unsympathetic.
I am happy to think that the House on two occasions at least has demonstrated its favourable
662
attitude. There have been a number of changes in the Bill since I introduced it here, but the principle remains intact, the principle that discrimination against the disabled should be made unlawful. I am the last person to suppose that any Bill introduced by myself or anyone else is likely to be perfect; but I look upon this Bill as something to be proud of.
The new definition of disability, which owes much to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), can no doubt be criticised, as indeed can any definition of obscenity or any definition of anything. But I am happy to stand over the new definition without saying that this is the law of the Medes and the Persians which cannot be improved elsewhere.
I hope in this respect and in other respects that the House will feel that proper consideration has been given by the promoters of the Bill to arguments which have been brought forward on both sides of the Chamber. The noble work of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the disabled is well known to all of us here. I am particularly glad therefore to have been able to meet their insistence that it should be made plain from the beginning that the discrimination we are seeking to outlaw is unreasonable discrimination. That is made plain at the beginning of the present Bill.
I will not seek to restate the arguments for the Bill, which I brought forward at the Second Reading or my replies to possible objections. I have certain ideas in my mind as to an initiative that could suitably be taken now, but I would not wish to unfold that to the House before I have had the opportunity of discussing it with colleagues elsewhere.
We who bring forward this measure are passionately convinced of three propositions: first, that any discrimination against a disabled person is utterly unChristian—and for that matter utterly unethical, although it may often be due to ignorance and indifference even more than malice. Secondly, that it is our Christian and our ethical duty to take every step in our power to bring such discrimination to an end. Thirdly, we are equally convinced that this discrimination is far more widespread than is tolerable in a civilised community.
The first two propositions I believe will hardly be disputed and will be accepted by all of us. But the third, our insistence that this discrimination is widespread and quite repugnant, may not as yet be accepted so widely or by everyone here. As time goes on, I am sure the truth of it will become ever more obvious. If all three propositions are accepted, the fourth follows inevitably: that legislation to outlaw discrimination is an urgent necessity.
There was a famous statesmen who remarked more than once that if he wanted to know what his countrymen thought, he need only to look into his own heart. I need hardly say that is not my own attitude towards the disabled. It would be an impertinence for me to lay down the law from personal knowledge in front of some who have done much more for the disabled than I have and who are themselves disabled. But as I said on the Second Reading—and I repeat it now—the great majority of those well equipped to speak for the disabled, strongly support this measure. It has been and will remain a

663
privilege for me to be their unworthy standard bearer, most of all in a House where so many noble Lords and Noble Baronesses—whether or not they approve of the present Bill—are so profoundly concerned for the disabled.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, having sat mute on the Government Front Bench throughout most of this Bill's passage and been gently chided on some occasions for doing so, I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and those others who have taken part would expect me to say a little at this stage. I of course share fully on behalf of the Government the concern expressed generally for the well-being of disabled people. The Government understand entirely the reasons lying behind the noble Earl's wish to legislate in this way. Additionally, I would of course be the first to acknowledge the work which he and others have done to improve, as they see it, the Bill during its examination in your Lordships' House. But I have to tell your Lordships that the Government's view remains the same as I expressed previously. The Government set great store by the other routes that they are exploring and developing to improve the lot of disabled people. However worthy and sincere the motives behind the Bill, we do not believe that it would be right to adopt the legislative framework which the Bill proposes. I would rather urge the noble Earl and those who share his views to continue to give their support and encouragement to the schemes that the Government already promote, so that they may bear more of the fruit which the disabled so richly deserve.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, it seems to me that the point about discrimination is as follows. If one has discrimination, one has to take discrimination against and discrimination in favour. If one does not have discrimination, one does not have the discrimination against, but one loses the discrimination in favour. So it seems to me that it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I should feel much happier if I were able to agree with the noble Earl, who I know has worked so very hard on this Bill; but alas, I simply cannot be such a hypocrite as to do that. I, and other Members of your Lordships' House who think as I do, consider that it would be wrong to allow the Bill to leave this House with apparently unanimous approval. On Second Reading I made it very clear that it seemed to me that despite its name, the Bill goes against the interests of disabled people. Through co-operation on behalf of employers and individuals, and especially through chairmen and chief executives (to which I made reference in this House last Wednesday in the debate on training for jobs) much has been achieved in helping disabled people to careers. Now the National Access Committee is just starting and it shows good promise. Various clauses were inserted in the Telecommunications Bill during its different stages in this House, protecting the interests of disabled people. These suggest that the director general of Oftel should have an advisory body on disablement affairs; and British Telecom already has such a body at work.
664
With such constructive moves going on I believe that this is not at all an appropriate moment to plan to spend large sums on setting up a commission, making inroads into the scarce resources for disablement causes, and to threaten legislation against able-bodied people. This Bill is unlikely to do what is required of it and is unlikely to result in what, unfortunately, disabled people have too often been led to expect of it. It will segregate disabled people still further, when for years we have sought to be more closely integrated into the community. For those reasons I voice very strongly my opposition to the passing of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, at earlier stages I said that I was speaking for myself in criticising the Bill, but last Friday I attended a meeting of the management committee of MENCAP and found that they share my misgivings and are not in favour of the Bill. But they would have liked it to go to a Select Committee, though I understand that it is now too late for that to be done. We at MENCAP are as resolutely opposed to unreasonable discrimination as is the noble Earl; there is no dispute in any part of the House about that.
But the question is whether the Bill is the best way to achieve further progress. MENCAP has done more to reduce discrimination over the years, especially in recent years with Brian Rix as our secretary-general, than any Act of Parliament could have done, and we want that good work to continue. We feel that it is more likely to do so if we are not hampered by threatening people with a commission or with legal proceedings. Indeed, we feel that that would be counter-productive and that the legal proceedings so far as the mentally handicapped and their parents are concerned could, as I explained at the Committee stage, give rise to false hopes. We feel, as my noble friend has just mentioned, that the large sums needed to implement the Bill would be better spent helping the handicapped in other ways.
Although the Bill was slightly improved at Report stage, it still has the disadvantages mentioned in different parts of your Lordships' House during the earlier stages. The definition of disability introduced into Clause 1 will have the strange result that people suffering from mental illness or mental handicap could be affected by the Bill only if their condition was due to—and I quote from the definition:
"any psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function".
or, if they had "severe disfigurement"; and not all mentally handicapped people would come within that. So I join with my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox in saying that we should not pass this well-intentioned, but misguided, Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and I hope that the House will pass it in its present form. I say that with some temerity because I accept the sincerity of the arguments to which I have listened throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I have the greatest respect and admiration for all those who have worked, and who still work, in the field of disablement. I shall not repeat what I said at the Second Reading, when in my support for the Bill I drew on my 30-odd years' experience of helping and working in the field of

665
the physically and mentally handicapped. People who have opposed the Bill—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said this on Second Reading and repeated it tonight—have said that it would be counter-productive if we were to introduce legislation. They say that it would be far better for us to build on the goodwill that has been established.
I certainly do not want to be churlish, nor speak from a standpoint of sour grapes about the progress that we have all helped to achieve over the years in the field of disablement. But I often wonder why, when we talk about the disabled, we say that they should rely on goodwill. We must accept that there is discrimination. We could probably spend hours tonight giving examples of discrimination. Every voluntary organisation has file upon file of examples of discrimination in almost every field. So we accept that there is discrimination against the disabled, but we say they should rely on goodwill. We accept that there is discrimination against women, but we say that it needs legislation. We accept that there is discrimination against the blacks, but we say that it needs legislation. Why then do we say that the disabled should rely on goodwill?
It was Peter Large, who, in a recent article, wrote—I paraphrase—that if goodwill is to disappear because we introduce legislation (as the opponents of the Bill seem to say), what kind of goodwill was it in the first place? Do we have to rely on that kind of goodwill?
We must remember that the disabled are about the only people who have no redress under any law. They are discriminated against and, as I have said, there are numerous examples of this. I should like to mention a few at random:
"People like them should not be allowed out",
was how one publican excused himself to customers for refusing to serve two disabled people.
"I have enough sick, lame and lazy",
an employer told a youngster who was seeking work. A man with an artificial leg was offered an engineering draftsman's job, but the offer was withdrawn when his disability was discovered. I could go on and on giving examples. Here is another: deaf people were refused a drink in a public house because the publican said that their sign language would upset the rest of the customers. We could go on into the field of housing and other areas where we know there is this kind of discrimination, for whatever reason. Yet the only redress is this supplication and sympathy. There is no legal redress for this kind of discrimination.
As I have said, I have spent a great part of my life trying to operate the educative process, to do everything that has been recommended during all the stages of the Bill, to argue for and support all the moves made by Government—the present Government as well as past Governments. Many excellent initiatives have been started. We have all supported them. We have pushed them as far as we could. We have publicised them at local, regional, and national levels through all the bodies and organisations with which we have been concerned.
But there has always been something missing. There was never enough bite, never enough push. Local authorities, employers, and so on, have always been able to slide out of it. Fire regulations have always
666
been a good excuse. So have access problems, as the noble Baroness said. There are umpteen excuses, and the disabled person has had no redress, only sympathy. We say that the time has passed when the disabled are the only group who have to rely on sympathy. The time has now come when we need legislation. We need a framework. The commission is an excellent framework of conciliation procedures where many of these problems could be dealt with or funnelled to the right place.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I think that the noble Lord got me wrong. He suggested that I was using access as an excuse. Not at all. I was drawing attention to the new national access committee that shows great promise.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am sorry. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she thinks that I got her wrong. I was saying that employers and others who want to slide out of a commitment, or a possible commitment, to a disabled person still use, in spite of improvements in legislation and codes of guidance, access problems to get out of this position. We know of many examples.
I have supported the educative process. I do not see that the legislation is opposed to education. I see the two as running in parallel. Education is concomitant with the legislation. One does not go against the other. We need legislation if the education process is to begin to mean what we think it should mean.
I have heard it stated, and people do say, that to give the disabled preferential treatment may cause problems. I have never looked upon the Bill, the motives behind the Bill and the motives of those who have sponsored and helped to support it, as asking for preferential treatment. I have always maintained that the legislation merely gives disabled people access to the law to secure equal treatment. It is a different thing to give someone access to equal treatment. We need legislation, in my view, to achieve that. I hope that your Lordships will accept the arguments in favour of the legislation as put forward by the sponsors of the Bill, and that the House will pass the Bill tonight.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give any quotations? I know of many instances where discrimination has been in favour of disabled people. People will take in a blind person or someone on crutches perhaps because, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, says, they are Christian people. However, the noble Lord also said that he had many instances of those who discri-minated against. Is the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, able to give the House instances of discrimination against the disabled?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House. I gave instances on Second Reading and repeated or implied again tonight that I did not want to appear churlish because I am only too well aware, from sitting with employers and voluntary organisations, of the many examples that exist of conscientious and progressive employers who take the attitude outlined by the noble Baroness. I accept that. However, it is not enough. There are the others. I gave statistics on Second Reading of the many thousands of

667
employers who still ignore the quota percentage relationship among employees. It is in that area that we have to introduce legislation to chivvy them on to come into line with those excellent employers and other organisations that already have some conscience about the problems.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): My Lords, may I add a few brief words of support for the Bill? I think that the Bill is necessary. We have, I believe, improved it, and I hope that it is more acceptable now that it relates only to unreasonable discrimination. It had to a certain extent been misunderstood previously. Now that it relates to unreasonable discrimination against, I should have thought it would be more palatable to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
The Bill is not to be brandished as a cudgel to give offence to every law-abiding citizen who may unthinkingly discriminate against the disabled, but is to provide a firm base from which to work hand in hand with education, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, to strengthen the hand of the commission when it is required to conciliate, to be a yardstick of behaviour and to make people question their attitudes. It is not comfortable to have to question your attitudes. You may not like what you find out about yourself. I suggest that it can be equally uncomfortable for the disabled. Some disabled who think that they are discriminated against and who are always blasting off complaints about it may equally find that they are wrong. It would be quite healthy for all of us to look at ourselves. Equally, when new legislation is being drafted, consideration would have to be given to the implications, for the disabled if the Bill is passed. You would have to get things right from the start. That would save time and money.
I appreciate what the noble Lord the Minister said about the Government helping the disabled with benefits, new benefits and new committees, et cetera.They are constructive moves, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, called them. I would submit that the fact of making unreasonable discrimination unlawful is totally different. It is not adding another prop to the scenery like another benefit or another committee to look into access. It is designed to change the whole scene. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for taking on the Bill and to congratulate him for piloting it so successfully through its stages. I hope that it does not get stuck in a backwater. I believe that it is necessary, and I wish it godspeed.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we have considerable respect for my noble friend Lord Longford. I wish to express my appreciation of his contribution. We are greatly indebted to him. Indeed, the House must be grateful to all those who have been tilling the soil in Committee. I regret deeply that I was unable to assist at that stage. I appreciate fully that there are members of your Lordships' House who are well qualified to express a considered opinion on this measure and who are unable to go along with its provisions. I accept their position. I appreciate their point of view. Indeed, the
668
noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has expressed her forebodings and her objections. So has the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It seems to me, that the House is in agreement on the broad objectives for which we should be striving but that there is disagreement as to how to achieve the objectives.
Discrimination has been accumulating for over 100 years and for various reasons, not the least being the attitude of society at large. To bring about changes in attitude is probably the most difficult of all the changes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that over the past 10 or 15 years, attitudes have been slowly changing as a result mainly of initiatives taken by the voluntary bodies. I accept that. But, rightly or wrongly, we on these Benches believe that we want even more rapid change. There is still a great deal of discrimination. We think that the time has come to change gear.
The Bill is not a magic wand. It will not bring about a revolution overnight. But it should help to pull down barriers and to remove obstacles and therefore to promote integration. If we are to do that over the next decade or two, then we require leadership from a body or commission that will be seen to have authority.
It has been my experience that on the whole the statutory authorities—and I have assisted with a statutory authority—are in general resistant to complaints to an extent that would surprise an outsider. It will not be easy to overcome that resistance. It appears to me that a central body such as that envisaged in the Bill—and noble Lords opposite see the need for a central body to receive complaints and to send them on their way to the appropriate Government department—will ensure not only that the leadership is available, but that complaints are treated in a similar manner at whatever level in the community and in whatever part of the country the complaint originates.
So we are sorry that the Government are unable to give their blessing to this measure. It has been much improved in Committee. There is need indeed to have another look at Clause 1 and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has underlined one of the difficulties. But it is our view that in another place other people can improve the Bill. Its encactment would be a considerable milestone, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for having tilled this ground so thoroughly.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and I assume that the remarks of my noble friend a moment ago do not necessarily bring the debate to a conclusion. My worry about the Bill right from the beginning has been that to proceed with it puts this House and the Bill in a false position. The Bill has already been rejected in another place and whether it was in circumstances that we liked or of which we disapproved does not matter. It was defeated in another place.
We are placed in the invidious position of trying to deal with a situation which is the product—if I may say so with great respect—of the misjudgment of my noble friend Lord Longford. The mischief in which we are placed today is due to the impulsive introduction of

669
this Bill so soon after its rejection in another place without considering the type of dilemma that we would be in as of today. Although it gives me a pain in the stomach to talk about reference to Select Committees after yesterday, I believe, along with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this is eminently a Bill which should have gone to a Select Committee because there are no contentious principles about it. There is nothing to divide the House or a Select Committee as regards the main purpose of the Bill. The complicated details of administration and definition contained in the Bill would have been sorted out in a Select Committee. But here we are; the Bill did not go to a Select Committee. It was a mistake to go on with it because the Bill went through its several stages in quite a false atmosphere.
The truth is that we are not doing legislative business this afternoon. I do not like debates on legislation which are falsehoods in legislative terms. A debate on a Motion during which we can have a wide-ranging survey of a situation and express different points of view is a good thing. But here we are trying to make the law. If we are trying to make the law. then we are being untrue to ourselves if we pass a Bill which is not good law and which cannot in fact be a workable law as it stands at the present time.
It is no good going into all the details to support that point of view. I am very sad about it, but I cannot help it. I am a practical man on matters of this type and I like to see a workmanlike job done. Indeed, this House, lays great claim on public estimation and general approval because of its capacity to revise legislation and to rectify defects and omissions in it. Here we are turning out a Bill which is full of trouble and difficulty. Because we have been told that the Government cannot co-operate in giving any help to the Bill, we have been handicapped right from the beginning in not having the benefit of expert advice especially on matters of administration. So this is really and truly an amateur attempt to get a Bill on a profoundly important matter.
It is with deep regret that I must say that I cannot support the passing of this Bill. It pains me deeply to have to say so, but there it is; I cannot help it. I do not think that we are doing the right thing. We are not doing the right thing by the disabled and we are not doing the right thing by this House or by Parliament. We had better do the only honest thing and that is to have the advantage of the progress that has been made in discussing this matter throughout the course of the Bill, but stop short now and say that the Bill will not make further progress. It would be a mistake to give the impression that it will or might make further progress.
We should reserve further consideration to another occasion on which I am sure more practical and better work can be done. The achievement of the purpose of the Bill will come. But, in the meantime, there is not the slightest doubt about it in my judgment: facilities for the disabled are more urgent than more law.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I only want to add one or two words to the many that have already been spoken on this Bill, and in particular I wish to support my lifelong friend the noble Baroness, Ladv Lane-Fox. I cannot describe her in technical
670
terms as my noble friend because we do not sit on the same Benches, but in every other respect she is my noble friend. She has overcome—in a way which would embarrass everyone, and particularly her, to hear—the problems which have faced her in her life due to her disablement, and so have many other people.
The problem that faces us tonight is that we have a Bill which I do not believe is the right way in which to approach the situation. I believe that the money which it would cost to implement the Bill can be far better used for the actual alleviation of the problems of the disabled. Yet we have hesitated to say too much for fear that we might be thought to be hard-hearted and to be ignoring the problems of the disabled. I believe—and I must be frank about this—that the noble Earl, for whose abilities, compassion and many qualities I have enormous admiration, has done us and this House a disservice in placing us in this position in which, if we believe that this is not the right road to follow, we will actually have to divide the House and appear to be in favour of discrimination against the disabled.
Of course, those of us who are opposed to the Bill are not in favour of discrimination against the disabled. Who could for one moment think that we were in favour of it? I only fear that that is the position in which many noble Lords may have felt they may be placed if they record their vote as not being in favour of what would in many other circumstances be regarded as a Bill for which they would have every respect.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I would just like to say a few words. First, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his kind feelings towards disabled people, whatever happens to the Bill. Also I should like to say, as I said on Second Reading, that I think that the name of the Bill is wrong. "Discrimination" is a difficult word. I would far rather that it had been "equal opportunities for disabled people".
The young disabled people of our country are not so patient as the older generation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, belongs. We have to move with the times. They want to get on with living by being equal. A hardness of attitude has set in over car parking. Only today I was speaking to a young man who has broken his neck. He is working as a director of a voluntary association and has been summonsed by a City of London court and in April will face a parking charge. What are severely disabled people to do if they cannot use public transport, if they cannot walk and they cannot find a parking meter?
Whatever happens to this Bill, this matter will no doubt appear again. Perhaps it should have gone to a Select Committee, as two wise noble Lords on either side of the House have said. If the Bill goes to another place, perhaps it could still go to a Select Committee. At least evidence could be taken from all sorts of people—young people and older people—who represent disabled people and the organistions. The problems of disability will not go away. They will not be swept under the carpet. They are very wide and very difficult. I hope that something good will result from the work that has been put into this Bill.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I did not propose to say any more after the effective reply—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, with the leave of the House!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I had not intended to say a few words, or any words at all, because the matter has been so well dealt with by those who support this Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised one point which I should like to emphasise, although it was on the constitutional issue. The noble Lord and I are both senior citizens, but I have been here many more years than the noble Lord and I shall not be told that this is in some way improper and untrue to the traditions of the House.
The merits of this Bill were never voted on in the House of Commons. It was defeated by a procedural device. I know that with one or two exceptions, this House generally does not divide on the Second Reading of Bills. We accept the idea that the principle must be accepted from the Commons. But this is not such a case, and it should not go on record as such in case anyone reading the debate afterwards wonders whether I was intimidated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I can assure the noble Lord that I have the greatest respect for him. but I hope that I shall never be intimidated to that extent.
The noble Lord. Lord Howard, was kind enough to say such nice but undeserved things about me that I must accept his censure in saying that I have rendered a disservice on this occasion. He appeared to believe that anyone who votes against this Bill—and I hope that no noble Lords propose to do so—will be in danger of being censured. They will not be censured by me. If he had followed what I said at the beginning, he would know that I was paying tribute to all Members of the House, whatever line they are taking on this Bill.
7.44 p.m.
On Question, That the Bill do now pass?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 68.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Attlee, E.

Melchett, L.

Banks, L.

Mulley, L.

Bishopston, L.

Northfield, L.

Blease, L.

Phillips, B.

Bottomley, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rhodes, L.

Collison, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Serota, B.

David, B.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman. B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wigoder, L.

Longford, E. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winstanley, L.

McNair, L.

672

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lane-Fox, B. [Teller.]

Ampthill. L.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Milverton, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Newall, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Cox. B.

Rankeillour. L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V.

Rochdale. V.

Denham, L.

Saint Oswald. L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Effingham, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Suffield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Teviot, L.

Greenway, L.

Trenchard. V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vickers, B.

Howard of Henderskelfe,

Whitelaw, V.

[Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wynford. L.

Kimberley, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Straw and Stubble Burning Prohibition Bill [H.L.]
7.52 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Alport.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AMPTHILL in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Licences]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Straw and Stubble Burning Prohibition Bill. Amendment No. 20 has already been moved and the debate upon it was adjourned on 21st March. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord wishes to speak further to the amendment, I shall put the Question that Amendment 20 be agreed to.
Lord Alport: This amendment was discussed fully on the last occasion. I have given it considerable thought since. I wish now to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("District") and insert ("County").
The noble Lord said: I should like to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley, who is not here. Districts vary enormously in their attitudes. There are many country areas which are under the aegis, if that is the word, of urban districts which sometimes have peculiar ideas, although not always. It would be much fairer if counties were to be the responsible authority. I beg to move.
Lord Alport: This amendment was put down by my noble friend Lord Ridley. I think the reason why he put it down was because the counties are the fire authorities. On the other hand the districts are the anti-pollution authorities. Further, districts have been relied on by the Ministry for many years past—for at least 10 years and more—to be responsible for enforcing the by-laws with regard to stubble and straw burning. The new model by-laws are for operation by the district councils and the Ministry has apparently, and quite rightly, confidence that district councils can carry this out in a proper manner. I am assured by the Association of District Councils that it would be perfectly possible for them to do this, and in those circumstances it seems only right that the district councils should be the local authority. Another reason is that the district councils, as we discussed earlier in this Committee, know the district well, and, although they have on them members of the old urban district authorities, also include members of the old rural district authorities: the farming interests are therefore represented on them. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: May I point out that there are no counties in Scotland? There are districts and regions. As this is meant to apply to Scotland it does not appear to be a suitable change.
Lord Gisborough: I simply do not accept the argument, but I am not prepared to press the amendment. The position in some districts is that there are simply no farmers. There are a few farmers, certainly, but there arc no farmers represented, and the representation is totally urban. However, while accepting the fact that it would be extremely unfortunate for those farmers in those areas, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 22A and 22B not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Penalties]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2. line 12. leave out from ("to") to end of line and insert ("unbaled straw on arable land.").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Short title and commencement]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Anatomy Bill
7.58 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It was guided through another place—largely on the nod, I may say—by an Opposition Back-Bencher, the Member for Blaydon, as a Private Members Bill, so it is appropriate for me to do likewise in your Lordships' House as an Opposition Back-Bencher. It is, I hope, a non-controversial Bill. It deals with an unusual and, some may feel, a rather macabre activity; namely, the anatomical dissection of the bodies of deceased persons for teaching or research purposes. This is another reason why it is perhaps appropriate for me to move this Second Reading since I have in fact as part of my medical training dissected a human body.
The Long Title of the Bill summarises its purposes clearly. It is, to quote the Long Title:
"An Act to make provision about the use of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, for anatomical examination and about the possession and disposal of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, authorised to be used for anatomical examination, and for connected purposes".
It aims to ensure that there continue to be proper arrangements for the possession and use of dead bodies which have been donated for anatomical examination, and that the system is not open to abuse.
The original Bill of 1832 was necessary to curtail the sinister practice of body-snatching—that is the removal of recently buried corpses, or even unburied but laden coffins, and their sale to medical schools for the use of medical students for dissection. The practice was most prevalent in London and Edinburgh where the medical schools were concentrated. Until the early 18th century anatomy was taught largely by lecture and demonstration, but during that century personal anatomical dissection by students became the norm. At the same time the number of medical students increased greatly from 57 in 1720 to 400 in 1800 in Edinburgh; and from 1780 to 1823 in London they went up from 340 to 1,000.
The practice of body snatching became a scourge and public indignation grew. Bodies became more difficult to come by and the price went up to such an extent that even murder was committed to obtain bodies. The notorious so-called "resurrectionists" Burke and Hare were in fact finally executed for murder.
The 1832 Act, the Long Title of which was,
"An Act for regulating schools of anatomy"
was an immediate success and body snatching disappeared almost overnight. It required all those practising anatomy to have a licence to do so; appointed inspectors of anatomy; required that all bodies used for anatomical purposes should have a death certificate and that the permission of any surviving relatives should have been obtained.
Obviously in 150 years things have changed and new legislation, which impinges on the 1832 Act, is

675
now on the statute book. The present Bill is in part a consolidation measure clarifying the provisions of the 1832 Act in relation to the Human Tissues Act 1961 which deals with the donation of parts of the body for therapeutic purposes.
The structure of the Bill is simple and I shall say something brief about each clause. Those of your Lordships who have read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum will have read some of these notes already. Clause 1 contains definitions of the terms "anatomical examination", "anatomical specimen" and "body". It also states that the Bill is not to apply to any post-mortem examination undertaken to establish cause of death or any donation of a part of a body which is authorised for removal under the Human Tissue Act 1961.
Clause 2 deals with the control of anatomical examination and possession of anatomical specimens. It states that both of these activities are only lawful if the death has been registered or certified, the premises are licensed, the person is either licensed or has permission from a licensed person and, of course, that the body was lawfully donated. Some of these provisions are similar to those of the 1832 Act which it replaces.
Clause 3 deals with the Secretary of State's power to license premises where anatomical examination is to be carried out and to license persons either to undertake anatomical examination or to have possession of anatomical specimens. This clause also lays down that a licensed person has to keep proper records in accordance with regulations made under the Bill.
Clause 4 states that a body may be donated in one of the following ways: by someone in his lifetime in writing or orally before two witnesses during his last illness provided that the next-of-kin do not object: or by the person in lawful possession of the body, unless it is known that the deceased would have objected or the next-of-kin object. This clause also provides that a body may be retained for three years after donation and gives the Secretary of State power to vary the period. This is a new provision.
Clause 5 deals with possession of a body after anatomical examination has been completed. It allows a licensed person, or someone who has permission from a licensed person, to have lawful possession of a part of a body in certain circumstances after the expiry of the lawful period prescribed in the regulations.
Clause 6 lays down that parts of a donated body can only be retained after anatomical examination has been completed when explicit permission was given at the time the donation was made. As with the donation of a body, the next-of-kin has to agree to the retention of any parts of that body.
Clause 7 covers the system for issuing licences. Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State power to make relevant regulations. Clause 9 re-enacts the provision in the 1832 Act for the appointment of Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy.
Clause 10 gives the inspector power to enter licensed premises, to inspect records and provides for the information in the records not be disclosed except in certain exceptional circumstances. Clause 11 makes it
676
an offence to carry out anatomical examination otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 12 says that the expenses arising under the Bill shall be met out of public funds. Any money received by the Secretary of State shall go into the Consolidated Fund. Clause 13, the final clause, deals with repeals and commencement orders.
It is possible that in the future all undergraduate medical students will not have to undergo this ritual experience. I believe there are equally, if not more, effective methods of teaching the anatomical basis of medicine. But there will always be a need for surgeons in training to dissect human bodies which will also be needed for research.
At present about 1,000 human bodies are needed annually for existing teaching and research programmes. This up-dated Bill is necessary to handle the arrangements for this practice. I am pleased to have this opportunity to promote it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill now read a second time.—(Lord Rea.)
8.8 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, at the outset perhaps I should say that the quite extraordinary speed, if not precipitancy, with which your Lordships dealt with the last business resulted in the fact that unfortunately—and I apologise deeply—I missed the first part of the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Rea. on the Bill. I was glad to hear what I believe was the bulk of his speech, and in hearing that I think I am right to say that I heard the only full analysis and description of this Bill that has yet been given.
Like other noble Lords when we knew that this Bill had come from another place, I looked up the previous Hansards and I found that the Second Reading in another place was taken on the nod. I found that the Committee stage was extremely brief. The Report stage was taken again on the nod, and the Third Reading, and the Bill passed on the nod. In other words, the Bill went through another place extremely rapidly without ever having a full explanation from anybody, although I would hasten to say that the Minister dealing with it in Committee, Mr. Patten, dealt very fully with the matters which arose during the Committee stage; but it was a very brief Committee stage.
I mention all this for reasons which will perhaps become apparent in a moment. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that it is high time that the Anatomy Act 1832 was brought fully up to date. It is high time that we recognised that the later Act of 1871 did not entirely do that. It is also true, as the noble Lord pointed out. that certain measures were necessary in relation to the Human Tissue Act 1961, in relation to the earlier Anatomy Act. Therefore, it is necessary to have a Bill and a tidying up measure in relation to that Act.
It is also right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, made clear in his interesting speech, that the circumstances in which the original Act came into being were totally different from the circumstances which now exist. Bodies in those days, which were necessary for anatomical purposes, for studying and

677
for research, were obtained by a variety of means which it was necessary at that time to control. It is interesting, too, that even since more recent discussions in another place and in your Lordships' House on this matter, circumstances have changed very rapidly.
If we return to the time of the Human Tissue Act 1961, then there was much discussion about the Anatomy Act because it was much involved when people decided that when they died they would like their bodies to be used for some beneficial purposes for the people who remained. Many like to leave human organs to be transplanted so that they can be enjoyed and properly used by others who live after them, but many people donate their bodies for anatomical examination and to the universities. The situation now, as the noble Baroness knows, is that the supply is much greater than the demand.
The reason for that is fairly obvious. The universities deal with these things in a most expeditious and efficient manner; they engage to conduct a full funeral according to the wishes of the deceased and the next of kin and they pay all the expenses. For that reason, and other reasons which are perhaps less self-interested, the supply is very large and you will find now that the majority of universities and medical schools are not looking for donors. They already have enough. I am not discouraging anybody who would feel mindful of adding his name to the list at some later stage because this is a very necessary purpose. I merely mention those matters to show that times have changed very much. In the light of the change, undoubtedly we need a new Act, so that we now have a new Bill.
It struck me as rather extraordinary that a Bill of this kind and of this degree of importance should emerge—and this is no criticism of the honourable Member who produced it in another place—through the luck of the draw; that an honourable Member in another place, winning the ballot, elected to bring forward a Bill of this kind. It is utterly clear from the nature of the Bill that the Government gave him a considerable degree of assistance in drafting the Bill; so that that Member, Mr. McWilliam, will now have a Bill in good form which has an opportunity of coming on to statute law as a result of his winning a place in the ballot. But that a Bill of this kind should have emerged in that way has necessarily resulted in the fact that at no stage so far have the Government given any exposition at all, let alone a full one, of their present attitude to this whole area. I merely put this question and I do not press it particularly strongly at this stage; but put it up as a marker.
It strikes me that if we are going to legislate here and now in this particular field, it is perhaps unfortunate that at the same time we do not seize the opportunity to do something about the whole area of the donation of human organs for transplants and things of that nature which, I think noble Lords will accept, is an area which at the moment is extremely uncertain, controversial and which many people believe is an area in which we need further legislation.
The shortage of kidneys donated for renal transplant is well known and many people at the moment are existing on kidney machines because of the shortage of
678
organs. Yet there is no doubt in our minds that there are many people who die who, had they known, would have liked their organs to have been used for transplantation purposes, had it been possible. But they had not taken the necessary steps; and the necessary steps are rather complicated and uncertain, involving the consent and agreement of the next of kin and others and involving a certain procedure. I know that we have the kidney donor card and a number of certain procedures.
If we look at the various organs which modern medical science is now able to transplant so that those are useful for some living person after another person has died, there are a large number, an increasingly large number. I think that that increase in number and the improvements in technique for the transplantation of human organs means that at some time, not too far ahead, we shall have to look again at the whole law relating to the consent for the removal of organs after death for use in transplantation and other purposes. I faintly express regret that, if the Government have seized this opportunity to take a Private Member's Bill to carry out the necessary reform in this area, they have not taken the same opportunity in order to bring in a more composite and far-reaching Bill.
Having said that, I have no criticism to make of this Bill. There are certain matters which we might want to look at in Committee although I cannot at the moment say precisely what they are. I do not think that I need give any advance notice to the noble Baroness because I do not think there are any real difficulties. It is an admirably drawn Bill so far as its purpose is concerned—and its purpose is very limited. It seems to me that it achieves it admirably and I see no particular difficulties in it. Having made those points, I think it is interesting that a Bill of this importance has arrived for a Second Reading in your Lordships' House having completed all its stages in another place without the Government ever having made a definitive statement about where they stand. We know where the Government stand because it is clear that the Government have assisted in the drafting. I am very glad that the Bill has come forward. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for introducing it and for having given an explanation of matters which had not previously been explained. I think I can promise the support of my noble friends on these Benches for the further stages of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I shall be brief. From these Benches, we give full support to the measure and welcome its provisions. I am sure that the House will be interested in the Minister's response to the important questions which have been posed by the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley. I do not propose to address any awkward questions to the Minister this evening. We consider the Bill to be valuable and non-controversial. It is acknowledged that there is a need to make adjustments to the law governing the issues in this delicate field, and to update the law in the light of the experience encountered since 1871 and 1832 and the advances made during the last century in medical knowledge. It merely remains for me to thank my noble friend Lord Rea for introducing the Bill and for having explained in broad outline its provisions and its historical background. My noble friend was well qualified to discharge the task.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is entirely appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, should have agreed to promote this Bill. The noble Lord who, as we now know, has himself dissected a body, will appreciate that, as it says in the preamble to the 1832 Act which was quoted by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health when he spoke on 29th February 1984 in Committee in another place:
"a knowledge of the Causes and Nature of sundry Diseases which affect the Body and of the best Methods of treating and curing such Diseases and of healing divers wounds and injuries to which the Human Frame is liable, cannot be acquired without the Aid of Anatomical Examination".
That, as my honourable friend has said, is as true today as it was in 1832. The original Anatomy Act was passed to allow for the lawful provision of bodies for anatomical examination and to ensure that such bodies were properly dissected in suitable places by bona fide students of anatomy; and, finally, that they were disposed of properly. Such is also the aim of the Bill now before the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already described to your Lordships the details of the Bill but it seems important to me to stress the differences between the present Act and the proposals in this Bill. This Bill defines in Clause 1 what is meant by the phrase "anatomical examination". As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already said, advances in medical science have made it necessary to do this. It is also in line with other modern legislation. In 1832. there was no statute on death certification and registration, and reference has now been included in this Bill. The 1832 Act requires a person to notify Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy that an anatomical examination is to be carried out on certain premises, but there is no provision for such premises to be licensed. In this century the custom has rightly developed whereby Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy visits departments of anatomy in medical schools, post-graduate medical education centres and hospitals and approves premises. We think it correct for the Bill to require the Secretary of State to licence such premises.
This puts the matter on a formal footing. Further-more, the original Act says that anyone studying anatomy shall be licensed. This includes not only the teachers who work full time in departments of anatomy but all the students and professional colleagues who might just do the occasional session in the department. The new Bill proposes that there will continue to be licensed persons working in departments of anatomy who will be able to authorise someone such as a medical student or professional colleague to carry out an anatomical examination or have an anatomical specimen in his possession. I am sure this more flexible approach is the right one.
The 1832 Act was. of course, passed at a time when it was impossible to preserve bodies or parts of bodies for very long. Indeed, the Act originally said that they shall be disposed of after six weeks from the date of donation. Today, with better preservation techniques, it is possible to retain bodies for three years and even longer. Nowadays there are occasions when, either because the dissection of a part of a body has been particularly well done, or because it is needed as part
680
of a student's practical examination at the end of his course in anatomy, a teacher would like to retain a part of a body for longer still or maybe indefinitely. The Bill therefore contains a provision to allow parts to be retained for a long time, provided certain conditions are met. These are set out in Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. I believe this provision is a sensible one and it has been welcomed by the people now working in departments of anatomy.
The present Acts are also specific about how a person is to apply for a licence and what sort of people are to be licensed. But. my Lords, we are not here dealing with large numbers of people, and the Bill proposes in Clause 7 to leave it to the Secretary of State's discretion to decide the conditions for granting a licence and how applications are to be made. This will result in a less cumbersome and more flexible way to proceed.
The present Acts only give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to vary the length of time for which a donated body may be retained. The 1832 Act makes detailed provisions about the records to be maintained and who is to do this, the way in which bodies are to be disposed of and so on. Modern statutes of this sort usually provide for such matters to be dealt with in regulations. Again, this is a more flexible approach and I am sure that this is the right one.
Those are the main changes introduced in this Bill. There are to be retained, first, the provision as to how a body may be donated for anatomical examination—detailed in Clause 4 of the Bill—and, secondly, the statutory post of Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy, whose duties are spelt out in Clause 9.
Finally, the Bill (like the 1832 Act) creates offences. I should just mention here that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that the fines shall not exceed level three on the standard scale, the maximum of which is currently £200. This is correct, but from 1 st May the figure will be £400, as the maximum fine for each level will be doubled on that date.
On the question of resources, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to charge a fee for issuing the licences. Currently there are about 100 people who are licensed and there are 50 premises approved for anatomical examination. It currently costs my department about £60,000 a year to employ the Inspector of Anatomy and his small support staff. We are thus not talking about large sums of money. No decisions have yet been reached on the precise level of fees.
The current Act covers the whole of the United Kingdom, but your Lordships will know that this Bill covers only England. Scotland and Wales. This is because of the need to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly about new legislation. Northern Ireland intends to put through legislation on the same lines as this Bill when time permits. Until that is done, the 1832 and 1871 Acts will apply to Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, regretted that this Bill has not been combined with the Human Tissue Act. At the present time it is not clear that changes to the Human Tissue Act are needed. In recent months the number of organs being made available for transplant has gone up very significantly.

681
The Secretary of State for Social Services is also keeping a close eye on the effect of recent greater publicity, asking people to carry donor cards.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, should be glad that this Bill has passed through another place in such an easy way. He may be interested to know that bodies donated for anatomical examination are usually disposed of two years after the donation was made and the departments of anatomy normally arrange for the burial or cremation. The present Inspector of Anatomy has instituted the practice of holding each year an inter-denominational service of thanksgiving, which the relatives of the deceased and and the people working in departments of anatomy are invited to attend. I think this is an excellent practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, treated us to some history: it is now my turn. We have come a long way since, on the morning of Christmas Day 1828, the Lord Advocate, Lord Meadowbank, proposed sentence on William Burke, saying that he should be hanged in the usual way on the 28th January next and that his body be publicly dissected and anatomised.
"And I trust",
continued the judge,
"that if it is ever customary to preserve skeletons yours will be preserved in order that posterity may keep in remembrance your atrocious crimes".
Burke's skeleton still remains in the anatomical museum of the University of Edinburgh. Evil he may have been, but were it not for his atrocious crimes, the Anatomy Act would not have been passed when it was.
In 1832, the Earl of Minto, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill for regulating schools of anatomy, stated that as the law then stood the bodies of persons convicted of murder were alone legally subjected to dissection and that the number of those persons was so small as to prevent persons engaged in the acquisition of surgical knowledge from obtaining a sufficient number of subjects without resorting to that class of persons called "resurrection men", who carried on their trade in defiance of the law.
Today we have before us this Bill, fully supported by the Government; and I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. This Bill will provide an up-to-date statute on what is undoubtedly a delicate matter. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the honourable Member for Blaydon in another place for promoting this Bill, and I join with the noble Lord in commending it to the House.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Baroness for the fuller explanation of the details and purposes of the Bill which she gave and with which I fully agree. I was also very interested in her historical research, which was rather wider than that which I was able to give to your Lordships.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, were of considerable interest and I hope that the Minister will note them further and agree that there is indeed a need for yet more publicity for organ
682
donation, and particularly kidneys. A better supply of kidneys would enable many with renal failure to live a fuller and more active life without being too dependent on dialysis. To return to the Bill in question, it is, I think, a useful and timely bit of legislation.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Peers' Rights
8.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult opposition parties with a view to setting up a Select Committee to consider whether the inheritance or grant of a peerage should continue automatically to confer the right to take part in the proceedings of the House of Lords and to make recommendations on this and on related matters.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for resurrecting this subject; indeed, I am rather glad to be able to pass from human anatomy on to the body politic. I am indebted for that felicitous suggestion to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, and I think we are both happy to move on to this subject, though in no way minimising the importance of the Bill which has just received its Second Reading to the pleasure of us all.
Many of us—perhaps most of us—are conscious from time to time of an element of absurdity in our splendid House. Over the years some reforms have been made and, when she recently opposed a motion for further reform at a Conservative Party conference—I think it was the conference before the last—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did so not on the grounds that reform was undesirable, but on the grounds that it would need all-party agreement and no such agreement was in sight. I shall be rather more brief than I had proposed because the hour is a little later than we expected, though not so late as it would have been if we had taken the Question last night.
I think that that statement would still be true if we were talking about a series of major reforms or about the abolition of the House of Lords. However, I thought that I might explore the possibility of agreement on a single point, or at least agreement to refer that point to a Select Committee. Why not leave well alone? The answer is that all parties are committed to some changes and that even those of us who think that two Chambers are necessary in our complex society—I have always been one of these and, possibly, happily for myself I said so in 1968 when I was a Member of another place and when the subject was before us then—cannot really defend one in which the right to vote on legislation can be inherited. There is also the problem of confusion between a peerage which is granted for reward for services rendered, and one which may be that but which also carries with it an expectation that the Peer will take part in the proceedings of this House.
All of us know noble Lords who have taken no such part in the proceedings of our House, who will take no part in those proceedings and for whom the grant of a peerage is solely an element of recognition of worth in

683
one way or another, and carries with it no expectation on their part, or anybody else's part, that the Peer will engage in the legislative process.
Constitutional changes can be brought about by revolution or by all-party agreement. To think that today there is any halfway house between those two extremes is. in my view, a delusion. There is no reality in the idea of mass creation of Peers, any more than the Chinese warlord of old times really created Christians by baptising his troops with a hosepipe. I do not think it can effectively be done. Indeed, a government which tried to introduce unagreed legislation, legislation which was not agreed between all sides of the House, would risk losing all the rest of its programme. It simply is not on. Indeed it was not on when there was agreement between the two Front Benches in the latter part of the 1960s, because there was a rebellion on both sides of another place for quite opposite reasons. Nevertheless, I think that perhaps a Back-Bencher can serve a useful purpose in floating an idea on such a question as this.
It will be noted that the Question is whether a peerage should continue automatically to include voting rights. It is not proposed to modify—certainly not in this proposal—the existing position, except that only those Peers who take part in our proceedings should, I suggest, continue to hold voting rights. But these details would be matters for the Select Committee.
The idea is not new, but it has hitherto been included with other proposals. I suggest this single change, that in future Peers should be divided between those who vote and those who do not. I believe that most people would think this a sensible change. There will be those who would regard it as a springboard for further changes. There will be those who would regard it as sufficient in itself. But I suggest that this single proposal would introduce into the situation the desideratum of clarity which is so signally lacking at the present time.
In the future, the right to vote would not be inherited, although the peerage could still be inherited. But may I again make it clear that I am not suggesting that there should be any direction to the Select Committee which would involve loss of rights at present exercised. With those few words, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has raised an important question this evening. At first, when I saw his Question on the Order Paper I thought that he was contemplating the possibility of a complete separation between peerages and membership of this House and that would, of course, have raised the whole question of reform of the composition of this House. Then, last Friday, I read a column headed "In House Briefing" in The Guardian, which suggested that what the noble Lord was going to propose was, first, that the right to participate in the proceedings of this House should be withdrawn from those who do not attend with some degree of regularity; and, secondly, that a commitment would be obtained from new Peers, whether they were
684
hereditary or life, before they were given the right to participate in the proceedings of this House.
In the event, I think it is right to say that the noble Lord has advocated only the second of those two, and I must say that, when one thinks that there are 1,194 Members, or thereabouts, of this House and that the daily attendance, though it is rising, is approximately 330, it is possible to see a very strong case for what the noble Lord has advocated. Why should those who never attend regularly be able to turn up on some specific occasion and influence the course of events, and does it help the credibility of the House if there are large numbers of Members who never attend?
I would go further than the noble Lord has done. I would be prepared to say that if a Member did not attend on a specific number of occasions during a Session, his right to participate had lapsed for the remainder of the Parliament, but that he could reapply to participate at the beginning of the new Session or subsequently. And, of course, there would have to be some clearly established qualifications for reinstatement—changed circumstances, previous ill health, a new commitment. I recognise, however, that it might be difficult to determine precisely what the number of attendances should be.
There is also the question of who would make the decisions within these rules. I imagine it would have to be a committee of the House. But, leaving that proposal on one side. I should like to make it clear that we on these Benches would have no objection to a committee considering the proposal which the noble Lord has put forward and other related matters such as those, perhaps, which I have just sketched out. I shall indeed be interested to hear the Government's view when the noble Viscount replies to the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has raised this matter at a time of increased public interest in this House and its operations. In the Financial Times of 23rd March, there was an article in which the following words appeared:
"in all sorts of ways the reputation of the House of Lords is on the way up. In contrast to the Commons, it comes out as dignified and detached in the sound broadcasts of 'Today in Parliament'. Attendance has been rising: on many afternoons it is now fuller than the elected Chamber".
Two days later Adam Raphael said in the Observer:
"It is indeed odd that the often despised, unrepresentative second Chamber should suddenly become the champion of the people".
He pointed out that this House is the only arena where Ministers cannot be certain of getting their own way. We on these Benches feel that it is very salutary that there should be an arena of that kind. At a time when there is an increasing regard for this House and the role which it plays, all that can be done to remove anomalies in the working of the House should be done. If some reform, perhaps along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has in mind, were introduced, it would be a natural follow-up to the considerable reform of this House which was effected by the introduction of life peerages.
The more fundamental question of the composition of this House would remain to be dealt with. Liberals have certainly stood for reform of that composition at least since the Parliament Act 1911. That Liberal measure dealt with the limitation of powers but it contained in its preamble the statement that reform of

685
the composition of this House "brooks no delay". It certainly has been brooking delay ever since, but perhaps now is the time, or soon will be the time to put an end to that delay. It is interesting to reflect that as long ago as 1920, Mr. Asquith, as he then was, put forward this solution:
"I desire to see substituted, for our present second Chamber, a Chamber much smaller in number, constituted partly by nomination but to the extent at any rate of two-thirds elected. My own preference would be elected in part by popular constituencies for a fixed term of years and in part by the House of Commons for the duration of its own life."
In August 1983, a joint Liberal and Social Democrat commission on constitutional reform put forward the proposal for a second Chamber of around 500, partly elected from the regions by proportional representation and partly nominated by a standing commission of Privy Counsellors. That solution was not dissimilar to the one put forward by Mr. Asquith all those years ago. So we on these Benches have consistently sought and still seek a reform of the composition of this House. We do not expect all other noble Lords to agree with us on that, but we do believe that the great majority of noble Lords in all parts of the House would agree with us on the need for an effective second Chamber.
We welcome the increasing esteem in which this House is held and we are ready to consider ways short of the more fundamental reform of its composition which we believe to be necessary, by which the House can further improve its image and effectiveness. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has put forward one such this evening.
8.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords. I do not see how any Committee can discuss the question of the automatic right of Peers, hereditary or otherwise, to take part in the proceedings of this House and to vote or not to vote on the business of this House in a vacuum, as it were, without discussing in depth the reform of this House and, indeed, of Parliament as a whole. In 1967 an all-party conference was set up to work out a scheme for House of Lords reform, which the then Labour Government proposed to implement the following Session. They produced a White Paper, and in November 1968 this House spent three days debating the proposals in that White Paper. If I have counted the number correctly, I believe 103 noble Lords spoke in the debate, some at considerable length. Many are still with us. Everything that can possibly be said for and against the present system was said in that debate, often several times. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has read that debate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I took part in it.
Lady Saltoun: I do not think that very much has changed in the 15 years since the debate took place, except that the number of Life Peers has greatly increased, while a number of hereditary peerages have become extinct and the number of Cross-Benchers has greatly increased, making the reaction of the House more unpredictable. The House is slowly but surely
686
reforming itself by the process of evolution, which is as it should be. Although the Motion that the proposals set out in the White Paper should be agreed to was carried by 251 votes to 56, nobody could then agree on the details of how the proposals should be implemented. So we are wasting our time, because I do not think it is any more likely that a joint Select Committee would be able now to agree about these details—they are precisely the details which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has mentioned—than it was then.
When you have a pool of voluntary labour of some 750 Peers—I say 750 because that is the number of Peers who attended at least one sitting of this House during the 1982–83 Session—with experience in almost any field you can think of, who believe that it is their duty to come here and help to govern their country, often at considerable inconvenience and some sacrifice on the part of themselves and their families, it seems to me to be sheer folly not to continue to make use of it and to be thankful. When Peers, particularly hereditary Peers, take their seats in this House, it is usually with the idea of doing some kind of service to their country—not for glory and certainly not for financial reward. If you abolish the right of Peers to sit and to vote in this House, you will have to find people to do the work by some means or other, and whatever means you adopt—whether it is some form of election, or nomination, or a mixture of both—five things will happen.
If you have a limited number of voting Peers, you will have to decide in what proportions you are going to elect or appoint them, having regard to their political affiliations. If you appoint or elect them in the same proportions as in another place, you will have a rubber stamp. What is the good of that? If you try to do it any other way, I do not know on what basis you will do it. Secondly, you will lose that splendid independence of mind which is the hallmark of the Back-Bench Peers, because they will be looking over their shoulders all the time at those who put them here, just as Members of another place look at those who elected them, or those who nominated them, or whatever. Thirdly, the people who put them here will expect them to be here, or about the business of this House all the time—or for a very large part of it. Therefore they will have to be paid well, if we are to get people of the calibre of many of the Peers who attend regularly at present, or as often as they can, having regard to the necessity, to them, of earning a living.
Fourthly, you will lose the immense variety of experience which Peers—and hereditary Peers in particular—can offer. For instance, not long ago the Earl of Essex died and was succeeded by a cousin who is a baker or a grocer (I cannot remember which) in North West England. He did not in his first interview sound at all adverse to taking his seat in this House. I wish he would because we do not have many small shopkeepers here and his experience might be very useful.
If this House is to be elected or nominated, I cannot see many small shopkeepers or traders getting in. I am not thinking about the owners of large establishments such as Fortnum and Mason but of owners of small shops in small towns, in country districts. Apart from anything else, they could not leave their businesses or

687
would not be prepared to do so in order to stand for election. We would end up with nothing but important people, and this House and the country would be the poorer. We would not have any ordinary people at all and we would lose precisely the quality that makes this House unique among second Chambers and the envy of the world; the balanced, commonsense view that it has and its understanding of the problems of ordinary people.
Also, there would be very few Peers under the age of 50 and, if some people have their way. there would be none under the age of 70. You would lose a great deal of experience and no young people would be coming along to learn how this House works. Some of the most able Members of this House are hereditary Peers who succeeded very young and who today, after many years' experience in the ways of this House, and while still in their forties or fifties, are occupying prominent positions. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is one. He made his very distinguished maiden speech in that great debate on the reform of this House which took place in this Chamber in 1968.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Lady will give way, may I suggest to her that she is not dealing with the proposal that I made but is dealing with a series of other proposals which I have not suggested?
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point but it seems to me that if his suggestion was put into effect, all these other points would require consideration by any committee. I know all the arguments against hereditary principle but the trouble is that it is a matter of fashion, and heredity has been out of fashion for a long time—like virginity and the novels of Sir Walter Scott. That does not mean there is nothing in heredity. To anyone who has known even several generations of one family and has seen how looks, mannerisms, talent, ability, likes and dislikes reappear from generation to generation, the hereditary principle cannot seem altogether invalid. We all know that cattle breeders and race horse owners have not found it to be so. The majority of hereditary Peers of the first creation were people of some ability—even if it was only in the field of making money. Is it therefore unreasonable to suppose that they may have handed some of that ability down to their descendants?
Research now being done suggests that some characteristics tend to be handed down, particularly in the male line. Some psychologists have noticed that eldest children tend to have qualities of leadership to a greater degree than their siblings. The noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said in the great debate in 1968 that one day there might be a demand that none should participate in a second Chamber unless they had by heredity an approved DNA rating. It would be a pity if we were to throw out the hereditary principle only to have our successors say in 20, 30 or 50 years' time, "How silly they were to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House—but, of course, they didn't know any better in those days, and now we do".
688
The peculiarities of our unwritten constitution have for a long time saved us from Aristotle's dread cycle that,
"autocracy begets tyranny, remedied by aristocracy which begets oligarchy, remedied by democracy which begets demagogy, remedied by autocracy",
and so on, back to square one. We have so far managed to avoid all three traps during the past few generations. In Britain, we have evolved historic safeguards in our constitutional monarchy and an Upper House, many of whose Members are bred to a sense of duty and not swayed by the fears and ambitions of elections. As some ancient Greek city state democracies—faced with the divisive rivalries of election—chose their officials by lot rather like we choose jurymen, so we choose some of the Members of this House by the lottery of birth, from a group of families originating in all classes who have shown some sense of responsibility in advance, and who are of all ages, various races and nationalities, an infinite variety of professions, and both sexes. Those without that sense of responsibility do not come here in general; the unsocial hours we work see to that.
Finally, as has been said more than once in this House, "It shouldn't work but it does". I am sure that it is always a mistake to change anything that works unless one is very sure that one is going to put something better in its place. Are the noble Lords who want to alter the composition of this House so very sure that doing so will be an improvement—or are they advocating change for the sake of change and on the basis of a possibly soon-to-be-disproved theory that heredity is of no consequence?
8.56 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, particularly because she happened to mention a kinsman of mine—Robert Capell—who, if we can succeed in proving his claim to the satisfaction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will, I hope in the not too far distant future, take his seat here as the Earl of Essex. As the noble Lady was not absolutely sure, let me just say that he does indeed run a family grocery business in Morecambe, and I feel that he would be a very useful addition to our House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins of Putney, for introducing this subject. I am at a slight disadvantage because the terms of his Question seem to be much wider than the proposals we have heard from him tonight, which seem to come down to the fact that for Peers to have the power to vote in future, they would need to have a minimum number of attendances here, and that the right should not be inherited.
The composition of this House may be illogical but as the noble Lady has just said, it works quite well. The usefulness of this House is growing, and I believe that it is growing in the public estimation, too. I have been a Member here for only 13 years but I am sure that this House is much more active even now than it was when I first arrived here. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, attendances now average more that 300 every day. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can tell us when he replies what the attendance was 25 years ago, before the life peerages Act was passed.

689
The most striking point to my mind about this House at the present time is that the Government are no longer certain of commanding a majority. I do not mean just this Government, but I think that it is a vital part of any second Chamber worth its salt that there should be certain occasions when it can say to the elected House, "You must think again on this particular matter".
In this objective I feel that the Cross-Bench Peers have a particular part to play. There are in fact 219 of us. If we were a party (which, of course, we are not) we should be the second largest party here. There is a daily attendance of 40 to 50 from the Cross-Benches. I suppose that we are roughly equally divided between life and hereditary Peers. Of the hereditary Peers, there are a considerable number who do not come here at all. There are also a considerable number who come only when their special subject is being discussed. What worries me a little bit about the proposition of the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins, of a minimum number of attendances is that it seems to me that we would lose the value of those Peers, because they really come only when their particular subject is being discussed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the proposal for a minimum number of attendances is not mine. It came from the Liberal Benches.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, then there are the 150 or so hereditary Peers. I am assuming that our daily attendance is roughly equally divided between hereditary and life Peers. I would just ask the question, what would this House look like without any hereditary Peers? I do not want to mention names, but we have here among the hereditary Peers the chairman of the County Councils Association, the chairman of the District Councils Association, the chairman of the Finance Corporation for Industry and many other hereditary Peers holding high positions in universities. One even asks oneself the question, what would the Conservative Front Bench here look like without any hereditary Peers? There are some young hereditary Peers whose presence here we greatly value and I personally welcome.
The hereditary principle, allied of course with the life Peers, the bishops and the judges, results in a random cross-section of people having the right to come here. I am sure that no one would want this House to be a pale shadow of the other place. I feel that this House has evolved greatly, even in my short time here. Rather than make any sudden changes, I should like to see the House continue to grow—as I believe it is growing—in usefulness and in public esteem.
9.3 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, in the first instance I apologise for not having put down my name on the list of speakers. Manning my Front Bench, and having listened to the arguments, I should briefly like to make one or two points. First of all, there is no doubt at all that the SDP and the Alliance are in favour of reforming the House of Lords, but in the meantime I think that we should be making a grave mistake if we tinkered with the existing set-up which is working really very well. We depend to a great extent on those noble Lords who are still in very important positions, and who are in the main hereditary, coming here and Vol. 450
690
giving their advice. Although we have already said that those who do not attend fairly regularly should apply for leave of absence, we cannot define this because it would eliminate some of the most important people who come here and give their advice.
We should come to terms a little bit more with what we mean by "democracy" and "elected". Somehow those terms seem to be absolutely magic. I do not want to go into this too far, but people should realise that they do not mean as much as a lot of people like to say. If you really believe in democracy as thought about by people as a whole, you straight away of course move to proportional representation. In most cases the voter has a choice of two evils—one person or the other. I am not for one moment suggesting that we should move away from this, but we should not be too frightened of saying: "Here we are in this House. It is anomalous in principle, but nevertheless we are doing a good job. It should be reformed in the long run; but, for goodness' sake, do not let us tinker with it in the way that this Motion proposes".
9.5 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney has asked a Question which has, as he himself recognised, great constitutional importance. He made a reasonable speech and there was much in it with which I think most noble Lords would agree. For example, like him I have believed for many years that a bicameral system is preferable to a unicameral one. There are those, including many in my party, who take a different view, and they can make out a respectable case. Therefore, the fact that the agreement of this House is required before the other place can extend its life beyond the statutory five years must be regarded as an important constitutional safeguard.
Even so, while those arguments about bicameralism and unicameralism must be given due weight, the primacy of the elected Chamber cannot and should not be challenged. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 have so limited the powers of this House as to make it impossible for it to challenge the House of Commons in any really significant way. If there is to be an argument it should be not whether the House of Lords should be abolished but whether this country should have a unicameral or bicameral system, and, if the latter, what form should the second Chamber take.
Over the past 100 years and more no single constitutional issue has been debated more frequently and continually than the reform of this House and the point which my noble friend has raised. The House will know of the bitter feeling which resulted from the defeat of Mr. Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill in 1893, which eventually led to the setting up of the Select Committee in 1907. This concluded in due course that:
"it was undesirable that the possession of a Peerage should of itself give the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
It recommended a House of about 400 Members, largely consisting of hereditary Peers elected for the life of one Parliament from within their number, a few hereditary Peers sitting by virtue of past office held and a limited number of life Peers. We know that no action was taken on that report, but it shows that my noble friend's suggestion has respectable antecedents.

691
The Act of 1911 dealt with powers and not with composition, and as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, its preamble contained some interesting words. I think they are worth repeating today. It said:
"Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis, but such substitution … cannot immediately be brought into operation …".
Interestingly enough, these words were written into our statute book only two years before the Senate of the United States became a directly elected second chamber. We must also concede that at the time Lord Lloyd George's description of Conservative peers as:
"Six hundred men chosen accidentally from among the unemployed"
is no longer true. The next step was the appointment of a conference of Members of both Houses under the chairmanship of Lord Bryce in 1917—a very important historic point in the study of this subject. This conference laid down four functions appropriate for a second chamber; namely, first the examination and revision of Bills brought from the other place. Secondly the initiation of Bills dealing with subjects of a comparatively non-controversial character. Thirdly. the interposition of so much delay—and no more—in the passing of a Bill into law us may enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it. Fourthly, to act as a forum for the discussion of general questions of policy—such as foreign affairs.
I believe the general views in this House would be that this exposition holds good today. The greater use of the guillotine in another place makes the work of revision more important, and we can also add to Lord Bryce's list this House's European Communities Committee, which has gained a first class reputation throughout Western Europe for the quality and importance of its work.
As to composition to which a number of noble Lords have referred. Lord Bryce it may be remembered recommended a reformed House of 246 Members indirectly elected by MPs on a regional basis and the remaining 81 Members appointed by a Joint Standing Committee of both Houses, with a proportion being hereditary peers and bishops. In the end, the conference failed to agree to the scheme and it too was in due course dropped.
The House will recall the subsequent changes and party reactions which occurred, the most notable of which were the Parliament Act of 1949 and the abortive all-party conference which preceded it. What is interesting was that agreement was reached on composition on that occasion as shown by paragraph 5 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 7380). Subparagraph (c) is relevant to my noble friend's proposal. It reads, and I quote,
"The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed second Chamber".
I thought the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, defended her corner staunchly, but I believe the general view is against her. The hereditary peerage, as we know, does produce some outstanding public figures: but I believe the trend of basing this House, the second Chamber in this country, on heredity to the extent that it is and has been based, is no longer acceptable to the British
692
public. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, asked a question; namely, what would this House look like without hereditary peers? Well, it might look very much like the elected House of Commons, which is the primary Chamber but what could happen is that the Government could convert a number of hereditary peers into a sufficient majority on the Benches opposite. That is one of the solutions that has been suggested from time to time.
For the next substantial change, which took place—and it is one of very real significance—was the Life Peerages Act, 1958 and I think it would be agreed by noble Lords on all sides that it has made this House more effective, more industrious and more representative of a wide range of interests. For this we are indebted to my right honourable friend Mr. Tony Benn. Notwithstanding this, since 1911 it is the argument about composition which has preoccupied people because it is the way in which this House is composed which is regarded by many as unsatisfactory and unfair, and powers have long since ceased to be of primary concern.
If this House decides to revise a Bill during its Committee or Report stage that may be, and probably is, an irritant to the Government in power, although it can overturn that decision in another place. However, in doing so. in the process of revising, this House is acting in the spirit of the Bryce conference. My own experience over the past few years is that where the Government have been defeated it has been on a substantial issue, and that the delay imposed on the Government has been justified. This House's recent acceptance of the amendment on telephone tappiing in the Telecommunications Bill and the Government's subsequent reaction to it is a classic example of this House performing an important constitutional function. The proposition that the work of the other place can be so reorganised, given its present already huge burden of Select and Standing Committees and other peripheral activities, is, to say the least, debatable. The tendency is to denude the floor of the other place, apart from at Question Time and for the opening and closing speeches of major debates.
But in his speech my noble friend has recognised and made plain that it is the composition of this House which makes it unacceptable to so many people and which blurs the arguments in favour of two Chambers—in favour of the principle of bicameralism. Notwithstanding what the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has said, the Conservative Party can still command an overall majority in this House, whatever the complexion of the Government in power. The Official Opposition alone cannot, and never has been able to, defeat the Government in the Division Lobby. It is a combination of all the elements in the House, including Conservatives, of whom there are many with an independent cast of mind, which halts the Government in their tracks. It is an interesting, obsolete and peculiarly British situation.
As my noble friend well knows, his proposal has been anticipated on more than one occasion. I find the White Paper of November 1968—to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. referred with approval—as cogent a summary of the problems as we are likely to get. It coincides with my own view of the position. It followed the conferences of 1910, 1917, and 1948 in

693
recommending the radical modification, or the total elimination, of the hereditary principle. Paragraph 73(b) of the 1968 White Paper summarised its recommendations as folows:
"Alter the reform came into effect, succession to a hereditary peerage should no longer carry the right to a seat in the House of Lords but existing peers by succession would have the right to sit as non-voting members for their life-time.".
The Government of which I was a member converted that White Paper, with its many practical proposals, into legislation, and the noble Viscount will well recall that time, because I believe that he then sat on the Opposition Front Bench in another place. At that time the parties had achieved a substantial measure of agreement, and it is regrettable that it was not possible to translate that agreement into an agreed Act of Parliament. Since then many suggestions have been advanced, both by political parties and by constitutionalists, across the whole spectrum, from abolition to election by proportional representation.
A Conservative committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, considered the problem in 1978, as did a number of my noble friends, with my late noble friend Lord Lee of Newton in the chair, and both committees made some well argued recommendations. I believe that the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Home, recommended an element of proportional representation at that time.
In conclusion, I wish to make merely two remarks. First, abolition would leave this country with one-Chamber government and would effect a huge constitutional change, with complex implications which have never been propery considered by either Parliament or the general public. Secondly, an elected second Chamber would surely in due time claim equivalent powers to the first Chamber. That would not necessarily be wrong, but it certainly raises fundamental issues. Sooner of later a solution to the problem will have to be found, and we must be grateful to my noble friend for pointing his finger in one possible direction.
My noble friend has a lively awareness of the difficulties, as he made clear when he said graphically that the constitutional changes could be brought about only by revolution or an all-party agreement. Another practical possiblity is a Royal Commission, followed by extensive parliamentary debate, and possibly a referendum. This has been suggested by the noble Lord. Lord Alport, on more that one occasion. In the meantime, my Lords, we must conduct our affairs here as well as we can and as efficiently as we can in the public interest.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to point out that I referred to the 1968 White Paper, but not with approval.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lady and I am grateful to her for that correction. I hope that she will read the White Paper carefully because I am sure that there is much in it with which she might find herself in agreement.
9.19 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins
694
of Putney, for initiating a short debate which has produced so many interesting points of view, and which has indeed brought us back to considering an issue which must be considered on many different occasions. The noble Lord referred to what I think he described as an element of absurdity in this House. I do not think that I would accept that, but perhaps it would be reasonable to say that there is an element of absurdity in the fact that I, a recently created hereditary Peer, should be the person to reply to this debate.
The noble Lord also said that there should be an expectation that those who are granted peerages should play a part in the proceedings of this House. I think, possibly, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when she sent me here, did expect me to do that, and since I have been here, I have certainly found that I have at least endeavoured to serve your Lordships' House. As for the expectation, I suppose thai, again, 1 am in rather an absurd position because, when I was given a hereditary peerage, it was perhaps in the comfortable feeling on the part of most people that the expectation in my case of a male heir was. to say the least, somewhat unlikely. And so, I am. I suppose, an element of absurdity that might appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
More seriously, I think it is important that this debate has brought forward some measure of agreement that I think i should record and endorse. First. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins, say that he believes that two Chambers are necessary in our constitution. I was pleased to hear that. It was endorsed by every other speaker and strongly so by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the leader of the Opposition, who said that there were those in his party who did not accept a bicameral system but that he most certainly did. I think that all the other speakers said exactly the same. That is very important.
There was also considerable agreement that, whatever may be the shortcomings of its composition—I shall come to that, for it is probably there that some disagreement exists among those who have spoken—this House, as a second Chamber, does in fact perform a most important function in our modern parliamentary system. I must say, with all due humility as one who has recently come to this House, that I strongly confirm that. I believe that it is important, although it does not give me or my noble friend the Chief Whip any great satisfaction, that, in the House as it stands today, the Government have to work extremely hard to get their legislation through. That is perfectly proper and perfectly right. I do not complain about it for one moment. Perhaps sometimes I complain a little, but on the whole, when I do, I realise that I have been wrong.
This has two effects. It is important that I should say so. The first effect is that my colleagues have to understand—I say "have to understand" because that is what I must tell them—that sometimes their legislation does not commend itself in certain details to your Lordships' House. They have then two alternatives. I am entitled to offer them one which goes something like this. "If all the Opposition Peers plus a large majority of Cross-Benchers think that your legislation is wrong in a particular, just perhaps and

695
maybe they are right." I am entitled to say that to my colleagues. And sometimes my colleagues have the understanding to accept that this may very well be the case, and they agree with me that some changes should be made in accordance with what your Lordships would wish or that they should go some way to meet your Lordships' point of view.
I believe that, if that is what happens, it is absolutely right. I believe that it is a very important factor so far as this House is concerned. It is one which I have been determined since coming here to stand up for. I believe that it is very important. I think that noble Lords in all parts of the House accept that. Of course, there are those occasions when my colleagues decide—they have not done so yet in my time, but perhaps they will—that they cannot accept this and are determined that they must test your Lordships' views for a second time. Very well. That is again a proper question.
On several occasions, when I was in another place as Home Secretary, I was presented with the question of whether I was prepared to test your Lordships' view. It was long before I understood your Lordships as well as I now perhaps do. The question arose of whether I was prepared to test your view a second time. Perhaps it was weakness—I do not know—but I never did, when I was Home Secretary, test your Lordships on a second occasion. I gave way. In at least one case when I gave way, I have been most grateful ever afterwards that I was persuaded so to do. I thought there were good reasons when I put forward the proposal originally and still think there were, but I was very glad to be saved from them by your Lordships' House.
So again that is another way in which this House plays a vital part in our legislative system. I believe that it is generally recognised—and this has been said by all the speakers in the debate—that it is very important for our system. Therefore, the importance of a second Chamber and, secondly, the value of the House and the work that it does with its existing powers—and I wish to come back to that—are very important to our constitution.
I turn to where there is less agreement and that is on the question of composition. Those noble Lords who have said that it has been discussed ever since 1911, as the noble Lord. Lord Banks, and others have said, are perfectly correct. The noble Lord. Lord Jenkins, will appreciate that there is nothing new in the arguments that he is putting forward today. They have been considered, as many noble Lords have said, on many different occasions. On all those occasions they have fallen foul of one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, put forward. He said that if there were to be changes they had to be accomplished either by revolution—and I was glad to hear him rule that out—or by all-party agreement. The truth is that when it comes to the question of composition of your Lordships' House there never has been all-party agreement.
When we came to discuss the matter in 1968–69, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has reminded us, the proposals were agreed by Members of both parties. I had an unhappy experience on that occasion because—and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was right—I was on the Opposition Front Bench in another place. But it was much worse than that, because I was
696
the Opposition Chief Whip and it was supposed to be my job to persuade the Members of my party that they should vote for this particular compromise. I had a great many very powerful figures in my party who were totally opposed to agreeing with those particular recommendations. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, would also say that there were some very powerful figures in his party who were equally determined to oppose those compromise proposals. One of these powerful figures in another place subsequently became the Leader of Lord Cledwyn's party, and many of those on the Benches that I had to try to persuade to support the compromise have blossomed in very many important positions since.
The truth is that there was no agreement. It came about that there was no agreement for the simple reason which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. also mentioned. The Commons in many cases felt that if they changed the composition of this House, if they made this House in some way an elected chamber, then they would have to give this House more powers. That is one of the main obstacles to any agreement between the parties: the one thing that both parties in another place will not wish to do is to give your Lordships' House more powers. They believe that if in fact they did change its composition they would have to give it more powers and I think I am right in saying that that was the reason above everything else why many of them—Mr. Foot, Mr. Enoch Powell, and many others—were opposed to those compromise proposals.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. As one who followed both Mr. Foot and Mr. Powell into the Lobby in opposition to his proposals on a previous occasion in the Commons, may I say that the one point upon which my proposal differs from all others is that it is a proposal for a single change, and it does not involve in any way a proposal to give this House more power?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I absolutely accept that the noble Lord is quite correct in saying that, but if he will allow me I will come to his single change when I have dealt with some of the broader changes, because I think I will also have to say that that single change in itself would lead to many of the disagreements which have occurred in the past. However, those are the reasons why so far any efforts to change the composition of your Lordships' House have always failed. They have always failed and, until a new situation occurs, I believe that they are likely to do so. Therefore, on the broadest front I must and do go along with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in saying that it has to be either by revolution or by all-party agreement. On the broader front there is neither at the present time, and therefore I do not think that the basis for a major change exists.
I should like to turn to some of the other speeches that were made on the narrower point of whether it would be possible to exclude hereditary Peers from taking part in this House. On this, of course, there is considerable disagreement. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggest that there should be a commitment: that those noble Lords who did not attend on a specific number of occasions should have their right to attend,

697
to speak and to vote removed, and they would have to renew it in the subsequent Session. To some extent I suppose that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is met by the question of leave of absence, but although that is valuable in a limited number of cases, I do not think that it has necessarily been a satisfactory way of proceeding, and I think that the noble Lord wished to go further.
Then we come to the question of the position of the hereditary Peers. My position is curious, but the position of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, also has certain curious factors to it. Before I rose to speak my noble friend the Chief Whip said, "Remember, you call her Lady Saltoun and not Baroness Saltoun". That in itself is a change. Contrary to what the noble Lady says, sometimes heredity, through the female line, produces considerable and very beneficial results. It does not always happen through the male line. I have four daughters and if I were to say anything else and any of them bothered to read what I said, which I do not think they would, they would not be very pleased. Therefore, I am delighted to welcome the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, as someone who shows the value of heredity through the female line.
The noble Lady very properly made some of the important points about hereditary Peers. First, there is the question of age. It is perfectly true that if hereditary Peers were not entitled to attend, to speak or to vote in this House, it would immediately and at once become a very much older establishment. That would be greatly for the worse. As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, said, the Government Front Bench would be a very empty place if it were not for hereditary peerages. I suppose that my position in it would only serve to underline that.
However, I must say that, but for the contribution that many of my noble friends on this Front Bench, who are hereditary Peers, make, I do not know what I would do. Above everything else, I am entitled to say that 1 simply do not know what I would do without my noble friend the Chief Whip; he would be a very serious loss indeed to me and one which I am not prepared to contemplate in any way at all. If I were to contemplate it, I certainly would not say it in public, but I certainly would not contemplate it under any circumstances. That is one point which is important.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, asked me about attendances. The Life Peerages Act changed the composition of this House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, should remember that credit is due to one of the most recent recruits to this House—the noble Earl, Lord Stockton—because it was his measure in 1958 which introduced the life Peers. Mr. Benn had some influence on some other rather remarkable affairs that took place later, but he did not have any direct effect on the introduction of life peerages.
Curiously enough, I made a speech in another place on the Second Reading of the Life Peerages Bill, but I did it for one of the worst of all possible reasons—that there were not enough speakers in the debate and I was pressed into speaking by the Whips. Nevertheless, I am assured that on that occasion I made a most excellent speech. However, I have never dared look it up since, and I certainly would not do so now. However, the average daily attendance in 1957–58 was 124. The
698
attendance in 1983–84 to date is 323. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has performed an important service in pointing that out to us, and in pointing it out to the House. It is very important.
Both the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, spoke of the introduction of people from many different walks of life whom we might not normally have here. They both mentioned the question of the possible arrival of the Earl of Essex as a family grocer. I should have thought that that would be an altogether valuable addition—the more valuable, of course, if he then decided to sit on my side of the House. But that of course I could not guarantee, and maybe with the keenness shown by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, no doubt they see in him a recruit for that important body, the Cross-Benchers, to whom I have already given I think the right tribute for the important part they play in this House and indeed in legislation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, "Please do not tinker". I think in what I have said I have shown first the areas of agreement. I believe that most noble Lords in this House believe that we should have a second Chamber. That is very valuable. I would readily endorse that. Secondly, the value of this House as a revising Chamber in legislation is crucially important. I wish also it had more publicity for its most excellent debates. I would equally strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about the valuable work of the Select Committees, which have gained a reputation far outside this House. I believe again that that is extremely important.
Perhaps I should also add in terms of the composition of this House that I have not always—"blessed" would perhaps be the wrong word—welcomed all the interventions of right reverend Prelates in various Bills for which 1 have been responsible in my political career, but I would stand up to the last for their right to speak in this House. I think I have said on a previous occasion how valuable it is for once in our lives—and it is only in this House that I think one can do it—to have the opportunity first to listen to right reverend Prelates and then to get up and disagree with them publicly if one wishes. That is not something that can frequently be done.
For all these reasons we should make a great mistake if we sought to change the hereditary principle. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that we should be wrong to tinker. If we believe in the value of this House and in its importance as a second Chamber, and indeed with the feelings of those who believe that hereditary Peers—as I strongly do—have a most important part to play in this House, it would be wrong to make the minor change which the noble Lord suggests. 1 believe it would be wrong, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, to tinker in this way.
I have to come back to the specific point of the noble Lord's Question and say to him that I greatly welcome the fact that he put it down. I greatly welcome that we have been able to have this debate. But I have to tell him first that the arguments on this matter have been so thoroughly rehearsed, and the chances of a general agreement are so remote, that I see little purpose in pursuing the noble Lord's proposal at the present time. It would need a much wider body, and it would need

699
a body which then might reach agreement between the parties. I see no prospect of that at the present time. That is why I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he has performed a useful function to this House in putting forward this Question in the way he has. but I hope he will also see why I believe this is not the best way of pursuing it through a Select Committee at the present time.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

  LEAR FAN 2100 AIRCRAFT
  LEAR FAN 2100 AIRCRAFT
  FUEL: COMPARATIVE COSTS TO HOUSEHOLDS
  FUEL: COMPARATIVE COSTS TO HOUSEHOLDS
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT: FUEL ELEMENT
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT: FUEL ELEMENT
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE EXPENDITURE
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE EXPENDITURE
  HANDICAPPED PERSONS: BUILDING ALTERATIONS AND TAX RELIEF
  HANDICAPPED PERSONS: BUILDING ALTERATIONS AND TAX RELIEF