Sitting of 5 April 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered upon Thursday 12 April.

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

        DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)
        Orders for Second reading read.
        To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 April

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Yeoasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of output for manufacturing industry at the latest available date compared with 12 months previously.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): Manufacturing output in the three months to January 1984 is estimated to have been about 3·5 per cent. up on the level of the same period a year earlier.
    Mr. Yeo: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary for that good news, but is he aware of the growing concern that that welcome upturn in manufacturing and in other sectors of the economy is not yet leading to any increase in the number of jobs? Therefore, will he consider taking further steps which will directly reduce unemployment?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend will be aware that the abolition of the national insurance surcharge was specifically designed to help in that area. Indeed, I should emphasise to the House that the abolition of the national insurance surcharge has relieved private sector employers of employment costs of about £3 billion a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that as a positive contribution to dealing with the problem.
    Ms. Clare Short: How does the level of manufacturing output compare with that of 1979? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the people of the west midlands when the Government aim to return them to the levels of output and employment of 1979?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Lady will be aware that the GDP average is now above the 1979 peak. She will also be aware of the dramatic increase in manufacturing exports over the past three months.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that at long last there is a real sign of a recovery in midlands industry and that the foundry industry there is beginning to recover? However, does he further agree that if coking coal cannot get through to the foundries because of the miners' dispute many thousands of jobs will be lost because of that dispute, which has nothing to do with midlands industry?
    Mr. Rees: It is a regrettable facet of that dispute that it is putting jobs at risk not only in the west midlands but in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he expects employment in Britain's manufacturing industry to be lower at the end of the year than it is now?
    Mr. Rees: No Administration have ever made forecasts of unemployment, because the variables are so enormous. If he reflects on the record of the Administration that he supported, he will find that they, too, were naturally prudent about making such forecasts.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from trade associations, companies and members of the public concerning the value added tax proposals in his Budget statement of 13 March.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I have received 729 letters from trade associations, companies and members of the public concerning the value added tax proposals in the Budget.
    Mr. Dykes: If major renovations or reconstructions of old buildings do not remain zero rated, is my right hon. Friend not worried that old buildings outside the highest value areas of London and elsewhere could suffer accelerated decay and decline and not receive the refurbishment and renovation that they get now? Will my right hon. Friend seriously reconsider the problem?
    Mr. Lawson: I appreciate that there is anxiety in some quarters, for the reason that my hon. Friend has given, but I do not believe that those fears are justified. It will still be economic, in many cases, to refurbish and improve buildings, and generous improvement grants are also available.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he has no intention of imposing VAT on basic foods?
    Mr. Lawson: I have no present intention— [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—of extending VAT beyond the areas to which it was extended in the Budget three weeks ago.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to information published in Regional Trends recently, more black puddings and potatoes are eaten in the north west than in other parts of the country, and that his proposal to put VAT on take-away foods will put those living in the north west at a disadvantage?
    Mr. Nicholas Winteron: That is rubbish, because black puddings are served cold.
    Mr. Lawson: As my right hon. Friend has muttered from a sedentary position, on most occasions black puddings are sold cold and they would therefore not be affected by the tax. I realise that there is some concern in the north west about this matter. No one likes the introduction of a new tax. In Manchester on Friday I met a delegation from the Chinese community who own a large number of fish and chip shops as well as Chinese takeaway establishments in the Greater Manchester area. I do not believe that the measure will lead to any serious loss of trade for those businesses. My hon. Friend must remember that what I sought to do was to decrease the amount of income tax paid by large numbers of people. I have sought to raise the tax threshold so that the average married couple will pay £2 a week less in income tax. That has to be done at the cost of increasing some taxes elsewhere.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling among the leaders of charitable organisations, not least those for the disabled, against the cruel new burden imposed by the doubling of VAT? What representations has the right hon. Gentleman received on that matter, and what action is he taking?
    . Lawson: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced only last week that zero rating would be applied for certain building alterations for the benefit of the handicapped.
    Mr. Bruce: The change in the tax on building and repairs has caused considerable confusion in the building industry. In the wake of a situation in which grants were available, we are now levying a tax on the same area. Is that not likely to lead to further unemployment in the construction industry, which already accounts for a quarter of all jobs lost?
    Mr. Lawson: On the contrary, the construction industry not only had a very much better year last year, but has been further assisted on two fronts by the Budget. The abolition of the national insurance surcharge has assisted it as a conspicuously labour-intensive industry, and there has also been the halving of stamp duty to 1 per cent. and the raising of the tax threshold for stamp duty from £25,000 to £30,000. The industry is confident that these changes will give it a tremendous fillip during the coming year. It was under the old system that confusion arose, because repairs and maintenance were liable to VAT, whereas alterations were zero rated. There was tremendous abuse, as that borderline was almost impossible to police properly.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from industry about the effect of his Budget proposals on small businesses.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): Most organisations representing industry have welcomed the Budget proposals, particularly the effect on small business of the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the immediate reduction in the small companies corporation tax rate to 30 per cent.
    Mr. Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the many measures in the Budget, which are of considerable help to the small business sector. I should like to ask about one measure which was not mentioned in the Budget—the loan guarantee scheme. May I urge him, when it comes up for consideration, to do everything possible to keep that excellent scheme, which is supported by many people in the small business sector?
    Mr. Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation of the Budget measures relating to small business. I am sure he will have read the press today and seen that the Department of Trade and Industry published the Robson Rhodes report yesterday. The matter is therefore under review and I cannot anticipate the outcome. Decisions on the future of the scheme will be announced in due course by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the Financial Secretary agree that many small building firms do most of their work for housing associations and local authorities in housing refurbishment? Does he further agree that when the budgets of housing associations and local authorities are cash limited, the imposition of VAT on refurbishment work will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of such work done by small builders?
    Mr. Moore: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to draw the attention of small firms to the enormous advantages that they will receive from other parts of the Budget, especially the abolition of the NIS and the reduction of corporation tax to 30 per cent. for small companies, up to £100,000. Those are significant improvements for small businesses, including construction companies. Moreover, 75 per cent. of the business in the construction industry is new construction.
    Mr. Rowe: I understand that my hon. Friend cannot comment yet on the results of his review of the loan guarantee scheme, but will he bear in mind that the failure rate among new businesses, irrespective of whether they are supported by a loan guarantee, is high and will inevitably be higher with the loan guarantee scheme in its present form, as banks tend to put more than they should of their less good risks into that scheme?
    Mr. Moore: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I remind him that it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's review, and I shall draw his attention to what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Maxton: As none of the measures that the Government have so far taken has stopped the ever-accelerating number of small businesses going bankrupt, is there anything in the Budget that will stop that tide?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Moore: The reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from a sedentary position and of people outside the House who represent small businesses seem to me to be a much clearer sign of the potential. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what the chairman of the CBI smaller firms council said. He talked about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor producing a "small business Budget". It is more important to remember those words than those of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Financial Secretary agree with the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. that this is a Budget for big business, not for small business? That being so, does he think that the Kentucky Fried Chicken organisation is a big or a small business, in view of its decision to freeze the opening this year of 350 new outlets because of the Chancellor's policies?
    Mr. Moore: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, no, I do not agree with such comments. I agree with the observations from the outside world that this is an opportunity budget. I hope that companies, including the one which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will, on further consideration, understand the opportunities presented by the Budget to small and big businesses.

    Public Expenditure and Taxation
    Mr. Proctorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the Green Paper, "The Next Ten Years: Public Expenditure and Taxation into the 1990s", Cmnd. 9189; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lawson: No formal representations have been received to date. I understand that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee will he examining the Green Paper, and I look forward to its views.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he is not blown off his declared course by making certain that finance determines expenditure, and not the other way around?
    Mr. Lawson: That is my firm intention. Too often expenditure has been allowed to grow in response to perceived needs and this has led to far greater total expenditure than the economy can safely carry, thus creating many of the problems that we have had. That is why it is our firm intention to ensure that public expenditure in total is maintained within what the economy can afford, allowing for further reductions in public borrowing and in taxation.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the Chancellor soon satisfy the demand for a second Green Paper, "Into the 1990s", in which he will set out all the measures necessary, or which he considers necessary, to accomplish economic growth, in spite of far less North sea oil, at the rate of 2·25 per cent. into the 1990s which is the precarious assumption on which all the speculations in the present Green Paper are balanced?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman's appetite for Green Papers is insatiable, but then, of course, he represents a green party. I have to tell him that the Green Paper on the next 10 years explicitly allowed for declining North sea oil revenues. That is fully taken into account.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that there will be no agreement with the European Community about own resources unless he can also give an undertaking to the House that the average net contribution at today's prices to the Community over the next 10 years will be less than over the last 10 years?
    Mr. Lawson: Although I am not quite sure that that really arises on this question, I am happy to answer by
    1100
    saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made the Government's position perfectly clear on this.—[Laughter.] I am sorry, I meant my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Gould: Is the Chancellor aware that the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors and other industrialists in similar spheres are extremely concerned at the low level of public capital spending? Will he now take action to rescue that form of spending from its historically low levels, both in the interests of the economy as a whole and for the purpose of maintaining our industrial infrastructure?
    Mr. Lawson: I am confident that the Budget measures that I introduced on 13 March will give the British economy the best chance of sustaining and continuing the very sound recovery that is now under way, the soundest recovery that we have had for a long time, from which various sectors of the economy will benefit. To single out one sector and argue for special measures for it is not an approach that I favour.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Chancellor recall that on page 26 of the Green Paper there is a list of assumptions which the Government have made for the next three or four years? Missing from that list is an assumption about unemployment during the next three years. What assumptions have the Government made about that?
    Mr. Lawson: The assumptions in the Green Paper are consistent with the continuing decline in unemployment over the 10-year period as a whole.

    Industry (Budget Proposals)
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects to be the overall financial benefit to industry of the tax proposals in his Budget.
    Mr. Moore: The Budget measures directly affecting business will reduce its tax burden over the next two years, taken together, by about £900 million, compared with an indexed base.
    Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the new corporation tax structure have been widely welcomed as bold and imaginitive, and that one particularly attractive aspect of this is the fact that companies will be able to plan ahead for three years with certainty because the Chancellor has announced the corporation tax rates for that far ahead?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. It is the certainty that companies now have about the long-term pattern of changes that will be introduced in the Finance Bill that will give them a unique opportunity. The reductions in corporation tax rates to 35 per cent. will produce a lasting cut in companies' tax burdens as well as the lasting reduction for them of taxation through the abolition of the NIS.
    Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister explain to the double-glazing industry how the imposition of VAT can assist it to increase its production, bearing in mind that this will lead to increased cost to purchasers and, therefore, to an expected decrease in sales? Perhaps he will explain to them and to those who work in the industry how the Budget will help them.
    Mr. Moore: First, 75 per cent. of all new construction is not subject to VAT, and the double glazing industry is critically involved in new construction. Secondly, about 95 per cent. of companies will pay corporation tax at the rate of 30 per cent. from now on, which will be a unique advantage. Thirdly, there is the removal of the national insurance surcharge. That will remove a direct burden on the double-glazing industry, which is employment-intensive.
    Dr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that the president-elect of the CBI described the Budget and the tax changes as "painful for some", that is for companies in the manufacturing industry, whose tax bill, in some instances, will increase by 25 per cent. in two years' time? Is he further aware that the tax changes will do nothing for jobs or investment in manufacturing industry and that the Budget confirms people's belief that the Government are deeply prejudiced against manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Moore: I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish me to complete the quotation from Sir James Cleminson, which contains many good points. In describing the Budget he said:
    "It is radical but it will be painful for some. It is a challenging Budget for business and we look forward to playing our part in this, a medium-term strategy for business, to help in the recovery."
    I am delighted to be able to complete the quotation for the House.

    Budget Proposals (Correspondence)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received since introducing his Budget.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): More than 2,000 letters have been received.
    Mr. Winnick: The authors were probably wasting their time. Is it not right that the Government do not expect any reduction in unemployment during the next financial year? Is the Minister aware that any Budget that does not lead to a reduction in the misery of mass unemployment must be considered a failure?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party should regard themselves as miserable failures for having imposed a tax—the national insurance surcharge —on jobs. The removal of that tax by the Government will be the equivalent of benefiting industry and employers by £3,000 million a year. It is downright effrontery for the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government for the effect of the Budget on jobs.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are very much in favour of the imposition of VAT on building extensions and alterations, but have great reservations about the introduction of the imposition by June as it will have an effect on existing contracts for which private individuals have already budgeted closely?
    Mr. Stewart: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is always difficult to establish a cut-off date for such a change. However, there are various means open to those who will be affected. For example, they can pay for the work under contract before 1 June. If the work is completed before 1 June, it will be relieved of VAT. There will be apportionment of time for work that spans that date.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: What is the Minister doing for small unincorporated companies which do not pay corporation tax but benefit from capital allowances? Their investment will suffer as a result of the Budget.
    Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that the Budget contains measures to reduce the burden of income tax for all. The removal of the national insurance surcharge will help unincorporated businesses as well as the incorporated.
    Mr. Forman: Were there some letters among the correspondence received by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which it was stated that the Budget would be good for employment? Were there letters in which it was stated that there was a need to do more for the long-term unemployed — specifically, the need to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Stewart: There were many letters among the total to which I referred which gave a strong welcome to the Budget, both for what it has done for the prospects for jobs and for economic recovery. Social security matters are normally dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. Terry Davies: How many letters drew attention to the fact that this Budget gives most to the people who already have most and does nothing for the people who have least? When Ministers reply to the letters do they explain this as being inevitable, accidental or a direct result of Government decision?
    Mr. Stewart: It was a direct result of Government decision that we concentrated proportionately the greatest help on those who are lowest paid. It is something of which Conservative Members are proud.

    International Debt
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further discussions he has had with Finance Ministers, and others, regarding international debt rescheduling; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lawson: I will be attending a meeting of the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund next Thursday at which international debt may well be discussed.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that during the past six months the amount of rescheduling that has had to take place has increased by 35 per cent. and that the Brazilian ambassador said yesterday that the rescheduling being imposed upon Brazil was likely to lead to malnutrition and urban violence in a period of austerity? Will he also confirm that during this year, prior to the American presidential election, there will be an increase in interest rates as a result of which there will be greater restrictions on those countries that have rescheduled their debts——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has had a very good run.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Government can take part in an exercise to reschedule so as to bail out banks that have been imprudent, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us why they do not bail out the pits which they say are uneconomic?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is rather losing his touch. In regard to the problems of international debt, the international financial community — that includes the United Kingdom—is following a two-pronged approach. One is to give assistance to these countries; the other is to make sure that they put their own houses in order. Both elements are important.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an awful lot of nonsense is talked about rescheduling these debts, not least by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but also by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)? Is it not a fact that the British banks have behaved completely responsibly in this matter and in accordance with the best banking practice to reach agreement on the basis on which they have done.
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. If there is scope for criticism of banks throughout the world — this applies more to American banks than to British banks—it is that they have allowed themselves to become overextended in these countries. Having had to face such a situation. they have behaved with considerable responsibility.

    Life Assurance Premiums
    Mr. Hirstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the administrative arrangements for the withdrawal of the tax relief on life assurance premiums with effect from midnight on 13 March 1984.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people completed proposals for life assurance that could not be accepted by 13 March because a medical examination had not taken place? Does he accept that many of these people are genuinely hard luck cases? Is he prepared to review the arrangements for withdrawal of tax relief so as to give relief to people who applied for life assurance prior to the deplorable leak by The Guardian?
    Mr. Stewart: I am afraid that it would not be possible to make a change of the kind that my hon. Friend is seeking. Any cut-off date causes problems, but to set a later date or to impose conditions of the kind mentioned would not be practicable.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minster agree that what should be done in cases like this is either to make sure that there are no more leaks from Whitehall in relation to Budget proposals or to leak them earlier?
    Mr. Stewart: The announcements made by my right hon. Friend in the Budget were operative from that date. Of course, if speculation takes place before that the market has to react in its own way.

    PAYE (Computerisation)
    Mr. Favellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of computerisation of the pay-as-you-earn system; and when he expects it to be fully implemented.
    Mr. Moore: I am pleased to say that the programme is proceeding to time and costs. It is expected to be fully implemented, as planned, by the end of 1987 or early 1988.
    Mr. Favell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has the system the capacity to keep the nation's records of national insurance contributions?
    Mr. Moore: When fully installed, the system will have the capacity, and that service could be provided. However, there would need to be an operational need for it.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by blocking all major income tax reform for six years, the income tax computerisation programme is the biggest menace to the sovereignty of Parliament since King Charles I? Will he guarantee that, by the end of 1987, no Treasury Minister will persist in using the argument that tax reform has to be deferred until these machines are in order?
    Mr. Moore: I shall not endorse the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, but I know that he will be delighted at the way that the proposals are proceeding to cost and time. When they are fully implemented, structural changes in personal taxation will be easier to impose.
    Mr. Hanley: Is my hon. Friend broadly satisfied with the choice of hardware and software used for this computerisation?
    Mr. Moore: Speaking on behalf of the Inland Revenue, I can say that it is well satisfied with the level of collaborative effort with ICL. This collaboration between the private and public sectors is an excellent example of what good work can be achieved in Britain.

    Motor Vehicles (Taxation Revenue)
    Mr. Roger Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected total revenue from vehicle excise duty, duty on petrol, special car tax and value added tax on the purchase of motor vehicles in 1984–85.
    Mr. Peter Rees: It is estimated that the total yield will be about £8·9 billion.
    Mr. King: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does it not show the wide gap between what the Government raise in revenue from the motor industry and the motorist and what is spent on behalf of the road user? Can my right hon. and learned Friend explain the relationship between the 25 per cent. tax payable on. a British-made Austin Metro car and the 15 per cent. tax paid on an imported Japanese video?
    . Rees: My hon. Friend should recognise that capital expenditure on roads will be up by 20 per cent. next year. As for the relationships between the duties on videos and cars, that is an interesting question, but we should not draw any general conclusions about the way that that might affect the motor industry.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make sure—when dealing with tax arising from motor cars—that the excellent and humane suggestion in the Budget about vehicles for disabled people is not ruined by the Customs and Excise? Is he aware that the revenue wishes to thwart the Chancellor's proposal that cars for disabled people should not be taxed?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is rather harsh on a distinguished and historic Department of State. He has drawn attention to the fact that there will be a vehicle excise duty exemption for the recipients of war pensions

    1105
    and mobility supplement and that there will also be zero rating for VAT and relief from car tax for cars able to take disabled people in wheelchairs.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman fully understand that the Customs and Excise is saying that to put into operation the Chancellor's Budget promise the vehicle has to be able to take a stretcher? Is that not ridiculous?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. This covers cars designed to take both people who are in wheelchairs and those who are on stretchers.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Leighasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the public sector borrowing requirement following recent changes in interest rates.
    Mr. Lawson: The Budget estimate for the PSBR for 1983–84 was £10 billion or 3·5 per cent. of GDP. The outturn will be published on Tuesday 17 April. The PSBR forecast for 1984–85 is £7·25 billion or 2·5 per cent. of GDP.
    Mr. Leigh: Given that the PSBR as a proportion of GDP has declined from 5·4 per cent. in 1979 to 3·25 per cent. today and that interest rates have declined from 12 per cent. to 8 per cent., will my right hon. Friend confirm the devastating effect that high Government borrowing has on industry's ability to borrow—in other words, the more that the Government borrow the harder it is for anyone else?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. One of the Government's main objectives in bringing the borrowing requirement down, as they have done, is to ensure that the continued reduction in inflation can be achieved alongside a steady reduction in interest rates. It is interesting to note that, since 1979, long-term interest rates in the United Kingdom have decreased by 3 per cent. while in the United States they have increased by 3 per cent.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not more than coincidence that when the building societies wanted to increase interest rates last spring they deferred that action until after the June election and, now that they wish to reduce interest rates, they will do so in May? That will affect the rate of increase of pensioners' pay rises in November. How does the Secretary of State manage to train his poodles so well?
    Mr. Lawson: The building societies make their own decisions in their own time. This Government, unlike the previous Labour Government, do not seek to interfere. I am sure that the House will welcome the 1 per cent. reduction in the mortgage rate announced after the Budget.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: How will the sale later this year of £2 billion worth of BT stock and other public sector stock affect the market? Will that sale not cause crowding out as well?
    Mr. Lawson: It will not cause crowding out. There is ample capacity for reduced Government borrowing and for equity issues in the private and public sector. That sale will assist in reducing the demands the Government must make on the gilt-edged market.
    Mr. Budgen: How can finance determine expenditure when so much expenditure in Britain and in the EEC generally is demand-led?
    Mr. Lawson: A great deal of expenditure is not demand-led.
    Mr. Hattersley: If there is the simple relationship between Government borrowing and interest rates that the right hon. Gentleman has just described, why is it that in Germany, Japan, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands there are higher levels of Government borrowing but lower long-term interest rates?
    Mr. Lawson: Those countries have been successful in reducing inflation to lower levels than Britain has so far done. Interest rates are affected by the level of inflation. The Government's policy is, therefore, a combination of getting public borrowing and inflation down.
    Mr. Hattersley rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I call Mr. Winterton to ask question 14.

    Construction Industry (VAT)
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his decision to bring house extensions and alterations within the scope of value added tax.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received representations from many trade bodies engaged in the construction industry, from individual firms and from members of the public.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that the Government are aware of many of the complications that that proposal will bring about. Will he accept from me, as a person who has worked for many years in the construction industry, that the proposal to bring house extensions and alterations within the scope of VAT is likely to increase the black economy and encourage the cowboys within the building industry, which, sadly, will be to the detriment of the qualified registered builder, who is desperately in need of work?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend's anxieties are not justified. The construction industry is experiencing rising output and is participating strongly in the recovery. Irregular operators and cowboys had much more scope in the days when it was possible to classify repairs and maintenance as zero rate alterations than they will have under the new regime.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How many further jobs in the construction industry, especially on Merseyside, will be lost because of the extension of that tax?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall not speculate about the effect on jobs in particular industries or particular areas. I do not doubt that the Budget as a whole, considering all the measures for companies and individuals, will assist the economic recovery, and that is the best way to look after future employment.

    Average Wages
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the increase in average wages has exceeded the rate of inflation in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Over the 12 months to January 1984 the increase in the retail price index was 5·1 per cent., and

    1107
    the underlying increase in the whole economy average earnings index was about 7·75 per cent. The underlying increase in average earnings has therefore exceeded the rate of inflation by more than about 2·5 per cent. over the year to January.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is bad news for employment? If average wages continue to increase faster than prices, are not fewer people likely to be employed? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the need to moderate the rise in real wages in the interests of easing unemployment? Will he do that by public education and persuasion and by direct action in the public sector?
    Mr. Rees: I accept the conclusion that my hon. Friend draws. The picture, however, is not one of unrelieved gloom. Unit wage costs are not increasing remotely as fast as earnings, because productivity increases have been sustained.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Marekasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Marek: Did the right hon. Lady hear the lunchtime news today, which carried a report of a death in unexplained circumstances of an employee at GCHQ Cheltenham? Can she give the House any further information on that matter?
    The Prime Minister: I am not certain to which matter the hon. Gentleman is referring. I know a number of—but they will be reported in due time when all the information is known.
    Mr. Farr: If my right hon. Friend has a chance today, will she consider the position facing some local authorities which are having to meet additional bills for police expenditure because of the miners' strike? Is she aware that in Leicestershire the bill so far is an additional £2 million? It will be difficult for local authorities to meet that sort of money out of their funds.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary met certain local authorities recently and has said that when we know the full extent of the bill he will generously and sympathetically consider applications for help.
    Mr. Kinnock: On the specific subject of local authorities, is the Prime Minister not ashamed to be bringing before Parliament a Bill that will remove voting rights from 13 million electors in Greater London and the metropolitan counties? Will she, in the name of basic British democracy, ensure that the Bill is withdrawn?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Kinnock: I note the humour of Conservative Members at the removal of those democratic rights. Is that
    1108
    not exactly the misuse of Government power and abuse of democratic values of which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) warned during the general election? At some stage, will the Prime Minister try to provide the facts that are supposed to support her case for taking them away? When, in any democratic country, have any democratic Government given satellite status to the council of their capital city?
    The Prime Minister: The policy was endorsed by the votes of 13 million people at the last general election.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Lady is referring to her manifesto, there is no mention in it of the abolition of the right to vote in any circumstances. The right hon. Lady may have a mandate for some things; she has no mandate for imposing puppet councils on London and the metropolitan counties.
    The Prime Minister: The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties was a foremost part of our manifesto. We intend to carry out those abolitions.
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister confirm that her Office has already confirmed the report that, within the last day or two, a GCHQ employee has committed suicide; that that has been confirmed by GCHQ: that a note was left and that note confirmed that the suicide was attributable to the pressure put on that employee as a result of the Government's policy of taking away the right to belong to a trade union? Will the inquest be in public? Will the report be made available to the House? What was the rank of that GCHQ official? Will the Prime Minister make a statement about the matter?
    The Prime Minister: Any suicide—I am aware of the suicide to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which was accompanied by a suicide note—will be a matter for the coroner. I expect that that note is in his possession.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement by the hard-nosed General Motors Corporation of America that it intends to invest £100 million in this country because of the changed circumstances here is a considerable vindication of the policy that she has pursued over the past four and a half years? Is she further aware that other policies of that kind will lead to further successful investment?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the news to which my hon. Friend refers. It is very good news and augurs well for the future of General Motors in Britain and prospects for jobs.
    Mr. James Callaghan: In giving permission to the Metropolitan police to acquire sub-machine guns, have the Government considered the impact of this serious further step in arming the police on the relationship between the police and the public, and on the very nature of the police service? I recognise the Government's dilemma in protecting foreign Heads of Government, but would it not be preferable in those circumstances to give that responsibility to the regular armed services when the Government are faced with short-term need? If the Metropolitan police are armed with sub-machine guns,

    1109
    that could change the character of the force and sacrifice a long-term beneficial system of policing to a short-term need.
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed to a request from the Metropolitan police for the purchase of a small number of sub-machine guns, as I said on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman may recollect, as it is within public knowledge, that as long ago as 1976 the Labour Administration approved the acquisition by the Metropolitan police of a small number of conventional sub-machine guns — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] — for possible use in a terrorist emergency—a cause which I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman and the then Home Secretary had very much in mind when they approved that purchase.
    Mr. Callaghan rose——
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Reverting to the question raised by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), is my right hon. Friend aware that the authorisation for the purchase of sub-machine guns by the police was given by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) when he was Home Secretary? Is she further aware that when the Leader of the Opposition seeks to make mischief and to attack the British police for doing what the Labour Government authorised them to do he is stabbing in the back the best police service in the world?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that any Home Secretary would have considered such a request very carefully, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend did, and had good reason for granting it.
    Mr. Callaghan rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should move on. I think that the House will consider it fair if I call the next question, as the Leader of the Opposition has had three opportunities to ask a question.
    Later—
    Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise with you a point of order relating to remarks made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), which you and the House will have heard during the Prime Ministr's Question Time. The hon. Gentleman said that I made an attack on the police. That has never been true, is not true, and never will be true.
    My references to the use of sub-machine guns —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the right hon. Gentleman on a point of order, and I want to hear him.
    Mr. Kinnock: My references to the provision of submachine guns for body guarding purposes are anything but an attack on the police, for whom I have every respect. The hon. Gentleman is sponsored in the House by the Police Federation, but my opinions are held in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan); the editor of Gun Review, himself a former police inspector, who called the Government's decision "horrendous"; and the editor of The Times this morning.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Many provocative things are said in the Chamber from both sides of the House. I hope that
    1110
    we shall not have an extension of Question Time through points of order. I called the Leader of the Opposition, and I wanted to hear what he had to say.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition raised what he claimed to be a point of order. To protect Back Benchers, will you declare that spuriously to raise as a point of order something that in no sense is a point of order is just as unacceptable from the Front Benches as it is from the Back Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on procedural matters and I entirely agree with what he has said. I called the Leader of the Opposition, and to that extent it is my responsibility, not his. I do not think that we should take this matter any further.

    Kingswood
    Mr. Haywardasked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Kingswood.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Hayward: On behalf of the residents of Kingswood, may I extend an invitation to my right hon. Friend to visit that area, where she will find extreme concern among many of my constituents who, in view of United States' unwillingness to export high technology in the form of extra-territoriality, cannot understand why the Government are considering the purchase of a United States ship-to-ship guided weapon, when an equivalent is available in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated a few days ago, a decision will be taken fairly soon as to which surface-to-surface guided weapon will be purchased for the needs of the Royal Navy. The factors that my hon. Friend has mentioned, with a number of others, will be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If the Prime Minister visits Kingswood, will she explain to the hon. Gentleman's constituents how she reconciles her statement of May 1979 that the public have a right to look to the Government for protection from crime with the fact that since then robberies have increase by well over 50 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the vastly increased police resources now compared with that time. He will also be aware that the latest crime figures show a small but welcome overall reduction in crime.

    Engagements
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister now give a simple yes or no answer to the following question? When she went to the palace of the Sultan of Oman to discuss the Cementation contract, was she then aware that her son was working for Cementation? Will she confirm or deny that the fee of £85,000 was paid to Mark, as reported in the press last Sunday?
    The Prime Minister: I have answered many questions about my visit to Oman, the Oman university project and official meetings and discussions with representatives of the Government of Oman and others connected with the project. I have nothing further to add to those answers.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to plan with the Foreign Secretary a follow-up of British initiatives on the banning of chemical weapons and support for the new American initiatives in that sphere?
    The Prime Minister: We welcome the recent initiatives by President Reagan to table further proposals. That initiative was foreshadowed in a speech by Mr. Shultz at the Stockholm conference recently. As my hon. Friend knows, we had previously tabled an initiative on chemical warfare, including the right to challenge inspection. We warmly support President Reagan's present initiative. At a time when chemical weapons have been used, it is extremely important that we should secure a comprehensive ban on their manufacture, stockpiling and use.
    Mr. Steel: In standing up for British interests, how does the Prime Minister justify the sudden severe cut in milk production inflicted on Britain, when we are less than self-sufficient, whereas the French, who overproduce, will have only one third of those cuts? Is she aware that that policy could spell financial disaster, especially for small dairy farmers?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are self-sufficient in liquid milk and almost self-sufficient in dairy products, perhaps more so when one takes into account the imports that we have in support from New Zealand. I had thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the European Community and the common agricultural policy, although I would not necessarily have deduced that from what he has said today. I hope he will agree that the recent decisions to reduce the overall surpluses are in the
    1112
    interests of the Community and especially of those who pay for so many of the surpluses to be subsidised and sold cheaply to other countries.
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend has an outstanding reputation for visiting all parts of the United Kingdom. Will she try to find time in the not-too-distant future to visit some of the dairy farmers in my constituency and explain to them why the full burden of the irresponsibility of successive Governments and of the European Community is being placed on their shoulders? Bearing in mind that schemes have been introduced for the coal industry and the steel industry, in which restructuring has taken place, will the Government introduce a United Kingdom Government-funded scheme to help dairy farmers——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.
    The Prime Minister: Other dairy farmers in other Community countries are taking just as big a cut in production as we are. In fact, in Germany and Holland the cut is slightly larger. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it was necessary to try to reduce the surpluses that have been produced year after year and have been stockpiled. For example, there is nearly a year's stockpile of butter in the Community.
    There are schemes to help farmers. For example, the European Community has agreed to continue for two years the income aid for small dairy farmers. In addition, there are pension or lump sum aids for farmers who want to give up farming, and various grant schemes for those who want to invest to change the nature of their farming. I hope that these schemes will help. I recognise that it is diffcult for farmers, but I think they recognise that action had to be taken.

Business of the House
3.34 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Completion of the London Regional Transport Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Telecommunications Bill.
TUESDAY IO APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY II APRIL—Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill.
Motion relating to the British Nationality (Fees) Regulations.
THURSDAY I2 APRIL — Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing and Building Control Bill.
Motions relating to the Local Government Superannuation (Amendment) Regulations.
FRIDAY I3 APRIL—It is proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment until Wednesday 25 April.
Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce now that the business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 25 APRIL—Opposition Day (13th Allotted Day).
Subject for Debate to be announced.
Motions relating to National Health Service Charges Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 26 APRIL —Third Reading of the Trade Union Bill.
Second Reading of the Housing Defects Bill.
FRIDAY 27 APRIL—In the event of the House agreeing to the motion on today's Order Paper, consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, for the sake of greater accuracy, changing the title of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill to "Local Government (Removal of Voting Rights) Bill", so that everyone will understand the substance of the Bill? Can he also tell us whether he will support the efforts that are taking place to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, because it is an important constitutional measure?
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is grave concern about the manufacture and sale of chemicals that can be made into weapons, especially in the light of the report in this morning's Daily Telegraph that British firms sold nerve gas constituents to both Iran and Iraq last year? Will he make arrangements for the House to hear a statement from the Government as soon as possible announcing a ban on all such sales of chemicals?
Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have refused the Opposition's request for a statement about the massive cuts in jobcentres which were announced yesterday? Is not the Government aware that, at a time of very high unemployment, what is needed is more advice and assistance for the unemployed and not a
1114
policy of hiding jobcentres away in corners of supermarkets, which contradicts the interests both of the unemployed and of prospective employers?
We shall break for the Easter recess at the end of next week, as the right hon. Gentleman has announced. Meanwhile, the concern continues about infringements of civil liberties which have been reported in the course of applications under Standing Order No. 10. May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that, if there is no significant improvement in these circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the early part of next week in order to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. Biffen: I will respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in the reverse order in which he made them — first by thanking him, not merely for myself but for many others in the House, for his statement that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is considering an application under Standing Order No. 10; that is noted.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on the proposal concerning jobcentres. He will appreciate that the commissioners of the Manpower Services Commission have yet to make a recommendation on the issue. That in turn will have been received by the Government, and perhaps in due course the matter will be further considered; I shall, of course, take account of his comments.
The right hon. Gentleman requested that a statement be made on sales to Iran and Iraq of chemicals which might be used for chemical and gas warfare. I shall refer his remarks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and doubtless he will consider whether it would be appropriate to make a statement.
I note that with his unerring accuracy for matters of great moment, the right hon. Gentleman expressed unease over the title of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill—I suspect that even if the title were changed, the substance would remain somewhat unacceptable—and that led him to make a request for the matter to be determined on the Floor of the House. That decision ultimately, can, of course, rest with the House at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: In view of the deteriorating situation in Gibraltar because of the threatened closure of the dockyard there, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether there is any possibility of having a debate on the Floor of the House on the future of that dependent territory?
Mr. Biffen: I fear that I can only be discouraging to my hon. Friend about the provision of Government time. But he will have noticed that Friday 13 April will be devoted to Adjournment motions, and he might like to try his hand on that occasion.
Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a further statement next week on the best and most appropriate method of safeguarding visiting Heads of Government and Heads of State to this country? Will he also ask if she will make available to me the papers on which the decision was taken by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in 1976 so that I may

1115
see whether a mistake was made, either by him or by me? That does not alter the fact that, at the present time, it seems appropriate that more serious consideration should be given to the matter.
Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, pass on those requests by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Marlow: We have been told that the Government will consider an increase in own resources for the Community only if the budget and the agricultural policy are solved. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if an arrangement is come to over the budget and the agricultural policy and this House then declines to increase the Community budget, as it might do —and, as my right hon. Friend knows as well as I do, any increase in own resources will go to agriculture—the two preceding parts of the deal, on the budget and agricultural reform, will stand?
Mr. Biffen: There are complexities enough in dealing with Community relationships without entertaining the hypotheses that my hon. Friend puts forward.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House undertake to make a statement—either next week or, after reflection, during the Easter recess — about a new ministerial question rota? Is he aware that twice in the past week Mr. Speaker has had to rule out of order questions to the Prime Minister about the silence of the Leader of the Opposition on matters such as the miners' national ballot and that this week the Opposition gave up half an Opposition day to the Government when they could have debated the matter? Will he accept that now that we have reached the constitutional position in which the Leader of the Opposition and several of his colleagues are paid ministerial salaries, they should be answerable to this House? Please may the Leader of the Opposition be included in the rota for questions?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman should not seek to tempt me. The question roster is normally a matter for the usual channels, and the matter will be considered there.
Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week I raised with him the urgent question of parallel importing, when he was kind enough to say that he would raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Social Services? Nothing has happened. Will he please again ask our right hon. Friend to try to do something in the coming weeks?
Mr. Biffen: Certainly.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The Leader of the House will have seen the statement by Mr. MacGregor, reported in today's press, that he is prepared for a long struggle in the miners dispute. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss that serious statement with the Prime Minister, and ask her to make a statement next week saying whether she endorses that point of view?
Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has her attention drawn to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Tim Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 639 on the taxation of vehicles for the disabled?
1116
[That this House, having welcomed the Chancellor's statement that 'neither car tax nor value-added tax will apply to family cars registered for disabled people or substantially adapted for their use', notes with concern reports that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise propose to restrict the application of this exemption to vehicles that can accommodate a stretcher or a wheelchair and no more than five other people; and calls on the Chancellor to ensure that his Budget statement is implemented.]
Will he ensure that we have an early debate on that or at least some clarification of the issues raised following questions to the Treasury?
Mr. Biffen: I must say that I would take every opportunity that was provided by the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent statement of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he favours the privatisation of the mining industry? Is he also aware of the great interest and concern about whether he was speaking on behalf of the Government? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot helpfully reply to that statement, except to say that I should have thought that the Government's view on public ownership of the coal industry was well established.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Five weeks ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the serious problem of the future of the newspaper publishing industry, when he suggested that I should try for an Adjournment debate. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful. Is there any other method of raising this point, which is just as serious as it was five weeks ago?
Mr. Biffen: As the problem is taking on the characteristic of semi-permanence, my advice must be —keep trying.
Mrs. Renée Short: For the past four weeks hon. Members have been pressing the right hon. Gentleman for a debate on the Griffiths report. Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety that unless we have a debate his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will try to implement that report by stealth, which will be a matter of great concern to the NHS? Will he give an undertaking that we shall have a debate as soon as possible after the business that has been announced today?
Mr. Biffen: It is my anxiety that there shall be an early debate.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members would greatly appreciate knowing what sort of arrangements will be made for certain services in areas such as Leeds when the abolition of the metropolitan counties takes place? Today we have a statement on the Inner London education authority. Some of us in Leeds are concerned about future provision for the theatres. Can we have a statement on the new arrangements for the arts?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give a categorical undertaking to my hon. Friend, but he might find it useful to take part in the Second Reading debate that is promised for next week.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statements that have been made by the new Administration in Ankara that they will not support any move towards a unification of Cyprus? As UDI was declared as long ago as last November, when will the House have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the Government's attitude towards Cyprus, for we are one of the guarantor powers for that island?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the fact that the hon. Gentleman makes the point on next week's business now will not preclude him from taking part in the Adjournment debate tonight. I have never yet taken part in an Adjournment debate in which he did not raise this topic. I admire his persistence, and I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary knows of his anxiety and his request for a statement.
Mr. W. Benyon: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), is it possible to have further details of the Government's proposals for the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties before the debate on Wednesday? Unless we do, some hon. Members will find themselves in great difficulty in that debate.
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed by the tone and content of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. [AN HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] Because I am an optimist. I take note of what my hon. Friend says and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the anxiety that has been expressed that a statement should precede the Second Reading debate.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Before commissioners, auditors or troops are sent into the city of Liverpool, and before people seek orders of mandamus, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the unprecedented situation in which the city of Liverpool finds itself is the subject of a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can decide what are the rights of freely and democratically elected councils?
Mr. Biffen: I note the serious situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it will certainly fall within the ambit of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. I therefore recommend the hon. Gentleman to consider making a speech when we debate that Bill.
Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that just before the Christmas recess I raised the question of the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive and the dumping of nuclear waste in the northeast? It is now nearly time for the Easter recess. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will be able to enjoy a summer holiday in the north-east without this worry around our necks?
Mr. Biffen: I will report my hon. Friend's anxiety to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Meanwhile, he, too, might like to seek an Adjournment debate on Friday.
Mr. John Maxton: In view of the Government's opposition to the English Rugby Union's tour of South Africa and the damaging effects that that tour could have on the 1986 Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, could the Minister with responsibility for sport
1118
make a statement about the sanctions that the Government are to take against the English Rugby Union? Will that statement be based on the same principles as the sanctions imposed on the Olympic team in Moscow — in other words, that no embassy facilities will be available to the team and that any employee of the Government who is invited to take part in the tour will be refused leave of absence?
Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, no illegality is involved in what is proposed by the rugby players——
Mr. Maxton: Nor was there in the other case.
Mr. Biffen: —but I will certainly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport to the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend may have seen the two full-page advertisements in The Times today from the GLC and the metropolitan counties. He may also have seen the growing amount of GLC publicity on hoardings all over London. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make an early statement about measures to prevent this irresponsible waste of ratepayers' money?
Mr. Biffen: The way in which my hon. Friend has put his question suggests that we will have a lively debate on Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. That is probably the appropriate occasion for such points to be made and answered.
Mr. Peter Shore: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who was concerned about Liverpool, that the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill would provide an opportunity for discussing the problems of Liverpool. Surely that is wrong, as that squalid measure does not extend beyond the boundaries of London.
Mr. Biffen: I hope that we are in for a period of mass contrition. I was indeed somewhat generous in my interpretation of the legislation to be discussed next Wednesday in saying that it could provide an opportunity for the discussion of those points, but, nevertheless, I believe that the Bill goes beyond London.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to condemn the attacks made by Indonesia on Papua New Guinea, which is a Commonwealth country, and will he ask him to press for an embargo on all arms sales to that country?
Mr. Biffen: I will, of course, represent to my right hon. and learned Friend the anxieties of the hon. Member.
In respect of the question asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), I will refer the hon. Gentleman's anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt in all parts of the House about the potential impact of the miners' strike on the steel industry and on Ravenscraig in particular? Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 635, which draws attention to the fact that miners are concerned about pit closures and that one possible way out would be to offer

1119
pits due for closure to the miners as workers' cooperatives? Could we have an early opportunity to debate this suggestion?
[That this House, concerned at the possible adverse effect the present strike in the coalfields may have for job prospects in the coal and steel industries, recognises that the miners' leaders are concerned over planned pit closures, and calls upon the Government to urge the National Coal Board to draw up plans to offer to miners in pits scheduled for closure the opportunity to continue to work their own pits as mineworker co-operatives and to offer the pits complete with mining equipment at a peppercorn rent and, in the event of the miners declining, to offer the private sector the same mines at a peppercorn rent.]
Mr. Biffen: I know that my hon. Friend is seized with enthusiasm about this topic. He, too, might like to try his hand on Friday.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise how important it is that he should uphold the principle that major constitutional measures are taken on the Floor of the House? The Bill to be debated next Wednesday is a major constitutional measure.
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make some redress to the official Opposition for the half day that they gave the Government on Tuesday out of Opposition time? If so, will he give the half day to the alliance instead, so that there will be some fairness in the distribution of Opposition time?
Mr. Biffen: On the first point, constitutional significance often lies in the eye of the beholder—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. As to his second point, I am not able to give half a day to the alliance and, if I could, it would destroy itself in internecine quarrels about which of the two parties should have it. I believe that we conducted Tuesday's business in a good, sound common-sense way and I am sorry if anyone was disappointed.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While fully understanding my right hon. Friend's desire that nothing said in the House should exacerbate the situation in the coalfields, does he believe that it is satisfactory that the House should go into the Easter recess without there being some formal way in which the matters about which we are all concerned are properly debated here? Does he not think that, rather than leave it to Mr. Speaker to deal with a series of Standing Order No. 10 applications, it would be far better for the Government, through the usual channels, to organise matters so that next week, before the Easter recess, there will be a proper debate on this important matter?
Mr. Biffen: Let me say at once that I have a lively sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but there is a substantial programme for legislative business which I have recommended to the House for completion before we rise for Easter, and there the matter must stand for the moment. Although it is not just a case of wanting to measure one's words delicately when facing serious and desperate circumstances, I must say that there are quite sound reasons for the House being as statesmanlike in silence as in speech.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As the Government affect a commitment to law and order, can we have a statement next week on how the Government reconcile that pretence with their proposals to allow the security forces and the police to act unlawfully when gathering information such as is proposed in the Data Protection Bill?
Mr. Biffen: The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is to recommend either that he use his initiative as a private Member or to see what other opportunities can be obtained in the debate on the Data Protection Bill.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the subsequent business of the House. I shall allow business questions to continue until 4.3 pm, which will be a full half hour.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since I mentioned the suffering of horses, ponies and other animals on the journey to and from market, especially those going to slaughter, I have been inundated with letters from the public. The BBC "Today" programme has also been inundated with letters, many containing evidence of what is happening. Today I received a letter pointing out that calves are being transported across the Channel——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question and not say what letters he has received.
Mr. Greenway: Can we have an early statement from the Government about their intended action on this important matter?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly refer to the relevant Ministers the topic that my hon. Friend has raised. I know that it gives rise to considerable feelings among a section of the population.
Mr. William O'Brien: In view of the reply which the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about the privatisation of the mining industry, will he take seriously the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? We are aware of the Government's policy on this matter and take seriously the suggestion that there might be something in the talk about privatising the mining industry. In view of industrial relations in the industry, will he make a statement or allow time for the matter to be discussed on the Floor of the House? I make that request because the matter is extremely important to the mining industry, of which I am a member.
Mr. Biffen: May I say in all charity to the hon. Gentleman, who is recently arrived, that taking things seriously is one of the pitfalls of the House. That rabbit will not run.
Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), about Indonesia's attacks on Papua New Guinea, will the Leader of the House draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the reply that I received a few weeks ago showing that Indonesian officers are being trained in Britain? Will the Leader of the House encourage his hon. Friend to withdraw that facility?
Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) to the substantial point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time shortly after the Easter recess for a debate on the Gower report into investor protection, bearing in mind the comments made at the time of the discussion on, and passage of, the Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Act 1984, and bearing in mind that legislation is supposed to be coming to the House in the next Session of Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: The protection of investors is central to the capitalist system and I am glad to recruit the hon. Gentleman to their cause. I have to say, however, that there is no prospect of a statement quite as quickly as he imagines, though I have no doubt that at some stage the House will wish to consider the matter.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Leader of the House recognise what Members on both sides of the House now believe to be the case, that the present dispute in the coal mining industry is a cause for concern? In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has made no statement at the Dispatch Box since 15 March and in view also of the many allegations under Standing Order No. 10 since that date, will he look with some urgency at the possibility of debating the matter before the House rises? Many hon. Members have constituents involved in an industrial dispute which will have lasted for something like two months if we do not debate it before we go into the Easter recess.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises in essence the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I cannot conceal from the House my real sympathy with that anxiety, because the House,
1122
very properly, expects to debate matters of major importance. There are other factors also to be considered, but we will see how we go.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it true that there is a division of opinion between the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on where the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will be taken? I understand that his right hon. Friend wants it taken on the Floor of the House. Will the Leader of the House now tell us that that is where, in fact, the Committee stage will be taken?
Mr. Biffen: I have nothing to add to what I have already said. As for divisions, I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that between my right hon. Friend and myself there is the absolute unanimity of the intellectual churchyard.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Further to the question of where the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill is to be debated, when the Leader of the House answered the first question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he said that it would be up to the House itself to decide at the end of the debate on Wednesday. What is the view of the Leader of the House about this issue? Surely it is a matter of great significance, given that the Government have no mandate at all in their election manifesto for this measure and given that a Bill to abolish elections must be a matter of major constitutional significance.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is making a number of provocative comments—as indeed he is required to do, sitting where he does. I cannot reasonably add to what I have already said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The matter is still under consideration.

Mining Dispute (Police Action)
4.3 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have made any representations to the Leader of the House or to those who arrange business in the House, in view of the fact that, during the course of the past fortnight at least, you have been inundated with requests to have a debate on a very important matter which is specific and urgent—the coal mining dispute and the associated police activites—and in view of the fact that you have been placed in the middle of what is obviously a tug-of-war between the Government and others who have some influence in arranging business.
Since the Leader of the House has said several times already that there is a lot of pressing business to arrange, my constituents — particularly those who watched the police put blankets over the heads of a handful of strikebreakers and bundle them into a bus and take them through the picket line—will never believe that a debate on the Ginns and Gutteridge, Leicester (Crematorium) Bill is more necessary to the nation, and to civil liberties, freedom of the individual and police activity than a debate on a matter which most people in the country are discussing.
It seems to me extremely strange, Mr. Speaker, that you have been placed in this predicament, in which we are this afternoon to debate for three hours the Ginns and Gutteridge, Leicester (Crematorium) Bill, yet there is no time to debate such an important matter.
Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the Speaker is frequently in the middle of a tug-of-war.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure you will recognise, the rules about Standing Order No. 10 are wondrously complicated, especially for new Members like myself. If I remember correctly, one of the requirements is that the matter be urgent. How is it possible, therefore, for the Leader of the Opposition to give five days' notice, as he did during business questions, about raising a matter under Standing Order No. 10, and is this not an abuse of the system?
Mr. Speaker: We have not heard that application yet, and I cannot rule on what is still a purely hypothetical matter.

Easter Adjournment (Debates)
4.5 pm
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the adjournment of the House on Friday 13 April, up to eight Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will then be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Inner London Education Authority
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future of the Inner London education authority.
The Government have been considering the responses to the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities", and the associated consultation documents. We have now reached a decision on the future arrangements for education in inner London. We think it right to inform the House of this now.
The White Paper proposed that there should continue to be a unitary education service in inner London, run by a single education authority. It also proposed that the authority should be a joint board of councillors appointed by the inner London borough councils and the Common Council of the City.
Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of the House and others with a close understanding of the needs of education in inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case.
We propose therefore that the successor body to the ILEA should be directly elected. We intend to provide for this in the main legislation abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, to be introduced in the next Session.
It remains our intention that the new education authority for inner London should be made subject to statutory review in the light of experience.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on accepting the advice of the people of London to have a directly elected body to run education in central London? Why have the Government not listened to the people over the GLC as well? Will the Secretary of State now join me in congratulating all those who campaigned to retain a directly elected democratic body in inner London, the parents, all those who work in schools and ILEA itself, on a major victory?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of the boroughs within inner London will be allowed to opt out or have any powers of veto? Will he confirm that the financial arrangements for the new, democratically elected body are to remain the same as those set out in the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities"? Will he confirm that he now accepts that inner London has extra costs in running education in the centre of a major capital city and that the authority is not a profligate spender but achieves educational excellence as a result of a sound financial policy? Will he also confirm that it was one of only six authorities out of about 100 which had a clean bill of health from Her Majesty's inspectors?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what will happen in inner London over the next three years? Is it true that there will be three separate administrations in three years, in that the present body will continue until May 1985, to be succeeded by a transitional body for one year, which will be replaced on the

1125
introduction of a new body from May 1986? Are the Government expecting all these bodies to implement cuts in education spending? Does he accept that the rate-capping measure will give all three bodies an extremely difficult task? Is he aware that the sharing of responsibility among the three bodies is likely to cause administrative chaos? Surely it would be far better to allow ILEA at least to continue until the new body is elected.
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have decided firmly, as is their right, on the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. With the abolition of the GLC it becomes necessary to find a replacement body for the conduct of education in inner London. On implementation, though not on that decision, we consulted widely, and today's announcement reflects the results of tha consultation. We are not qualifying the decision to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
Inner London boroughs will not have the right to opt out. The Government have decided that there should be a continuing unitary authority for inner London. As I have said, there will be a power in the main Bill to review those arrangements following a study of the performance of the replacement authority.
I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that inner London faces extra education costs. However, the extra costs are provided for in the special factors that are built into the rate support grant. Despite all the zeal of those concerned with education in inner London, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the result represents satisfying value for money for the ratepayers or parents.
The proposals for the next three years, including those for the replacement authority, concern important details which will fall for consideration when the main Bill comes before the House.
Mr. John Maples: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much his statement is welcomed by many of us and how much many of us hope that a directly elected ILEA will lead to better education standards and better control of education expenditure? Does he agree that it would be a natural extension of the excellent idea of a directly elected ILEA for the authority to issue its own rate bills, so that Londoners can correlate their vote with education policy and the cost of that policy?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that arrangements are proposed that will provide a clear sign to London ratepayers of the cost of education in inner London.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this fascinating innovation, or rather reversion to an earlier stage in the evolution of local government, will have a wide range of application elsewhere wherever single services are administered by an appointed or indirectly elected body over a wide area?
Sir Keith Joseph: No, on this occasion I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, when taken together, justify a directly elected authority for such a unique operation.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in settling the tricky conflict
1126
between the interests of democratic accountability and financial responsibility for education in inner London he has obviously opted for the former? Is he aware that in doing so he is running a great risk, in that it will be difficult to control the spending of the new body, and that in many ways it will become a legitimate pressure group for spending in excess of what would otherwise be legitimate in such an area?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is on to a real point. However, he has forgotten that almost any body or organisation concerned with education in inner London will probably represent widespread, though not universal, demands for more spending. In this instance it is likely that the authority will be exposed to nomination for rate-capping. We believe that direct elections will slightly enhance the propensity to look for value for money. We think that healthy influences are being brought to bear by the Government's general education aims and, apparently, by ILEA through its recently published Hargreaves report on value for money and quality in education.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his statement today will be most welcome, as it represents a tribute to the excellence of the service provided by the Inner London education authority, the popularity of that authority and a credit to all those who have campaigned to retain it as an elected body? Will he recognise that the tremendous success and popularity of that campaign will prove an inspiration to those in London who wish to preserve the GLC and to protect borough councils from rate capping? Will he acknowledge also that if he intends to continue with his proposition for a statutory review after the new body has been established, that will mean only that the Inner London education authority in its new form will be bedevilled by the uncertainty which has diverted so much enthusiasm, experience and commitment from improving standards within the authority to defending the very organisation itself, a defence which has continued ever since the 1979 general election?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that at last the hon. Gentleman has brought his unwieldy syntax to a close. I cannot agree with any part of his rodomontade. The Government's decision reflects the serious study that they have made of the responses to the consultation process, and especially to the persuasive powers of the arguments of many bodies, including hon. Members, the Churches and the majority party in ILEA. Perhaps I should refer particularly to Professor David Smith and his Conservative colleagues in the minority party at county hall.
Mr. Harry Greenway: As a former employee of ILEA for 43 years, may I warmly welcome direct elections, as I know the teaching staff throughout the authority will? What kind of directly elected body does my right hon. Friend have in mind? Will there be multimember constituencies, and will the City be involved? Secondly, will he tell Labour Members that the future of ILEA was never in doubt and that it was grossly wrong of the authority to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money on a spurious campaign to save itself, which resulted in the disruption of children's education?
Sir Keith Joseph: I fear that I cannot answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question. He has referred to

1127
important details, but they are not for the immediate decision of the House. They will come before the House when the substantive Bill comes before it.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the welcome elections that he has announced will not be meaningful unless inner Londoners are given the opportunity to decide for themselves through the ballot box important issues such as the spending and staffing levels of the authority? Will he therefore withdraw the proposal in "Streamlining the Cities" that decisions on these important matters should be imposed on the elected authority by Ministers?
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government would not have embarked upon the decision to rate-cap if it were not for the conduct of a number of local authorities throughout the country including, on its present performance, ILEA. No decision will be made about which authority might be rate-capped until nearer the time when we are able to judge recent performances.
Dr. Keith Hampson: I know that my right hon. Friend has a special case to plead, but will he say what warrants education having this special treatment as against transport, for example? What advantage does he see in replacing Mr. Ken Livingstone with Mrs. Morrell, the leader of ILEA, who will become only directly elected leader in London? Does he believe that she will do other than try to speak for London and the world?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is seeking to sour my relations with some of my right hon. Friends. I am forced to say that education in inner London deserves unique treatment because of its nature, scale and importance. As for Mrs. Morrell, or anyone who seeks to succeed her, I hope that she will have a very hard fight to retain her position on any successor body.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Can the Secretary of State explain the relationship of his statement to the Bill that we are to discuss next Wednesday, which will abolish the next GLC and ILEA elections? Does he propose that that Bill should be amended to allow the present elected councillors who run ILEA to continue in office and provide continuity, because it seems that that is the most sensible course, otherwise he will be causing great disruption to a well-run and sensible authority?
Sir Keith Joseph: So far as I understand it, there is provision for some of the members on the present Inner London education authority to have a continuing existence in the successor authority. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that these important details are not for the paving Bill, but for the main Bill.
Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I understand fully the reasons why my right hon. Friend has taken this course of action and welcome the fact that he has come to these conclusions. Can he tell the House whether it is in his mind that the direct elections to the new education authority will be conterminous with the borough elections, or whether they will be held in separate years?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am sorry to have to give the same answer even to my hon. Friend, but those important matters are not for the paving Bill. This afternoon I am sharing with the House a crucial decision that the Government have made. The important details will have to be settled later.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that the emphasis that he has laid on the nature, scale and importance of ILEA will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House? Why does he think that either the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Chancellor of the Exchequer is equipped to decide how much ILEA ought to spend on education?
Sir Keith Joseph: That is a question that the House has debated. I think that the debate gave the House the answer that the Government have given.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: If the undoubted realism of my right hon. Friend tells him and me that creating a directly elected education authority for London will give better value for money—his term—why should he hesitate to extend the proposal to other parts of the country?
Sir Keith Joseph: I hope that my hon. Friend will not force me to give the House a catalogue of the orders of magnitude by which Inner London education authority spending exceeds that of any other municipal service. It is a multiple of five or six, which justifies me in talking about the "scale" of this unique service as well as its "nature" and "importance".
Ms. Harriet Harman: Is it not appropriate for the House to congratulate all those who stood up for London's education service — parents, teachers, non-teaching staff, the governors and the Labour-led ILEA —and forced this U-turn on the Government? Is it not the case that London's education is still suffering grievously because of spending cuts? What an odd sense of priority the Secretary of State has when he chooses to criticise and punish ILEA, which is one out of only six of the 96 education authorities in the country which his own inspectors have said is providing a service for the full range of educational needs. Should he not——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Much of what the hon. Lady has said would be appropriate for the debate on the relevant Bill.
Sir Keith Joseph: An education authority for inner London was never in question or in any way at risk. What we consulted about was implementation. We have heeded the results of that consultation. As for the spending of ILEA, I think it can fairly be said that, despite the zeal of most people concerned, value for money is not its predominant characteristic.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways of dealing with ILEA would have been, and might still be, to allow those boroughs that want to do so to take over their own education? Does he also agree that even with direct elections there is no assurance that the leaders of ILEA will be those who appear to be the leaders at the time of the election? We have seen two changes in ILEA since the last GLC election. [Interruption.] Would it be a good idea if all parties started to look at the future of ILEA in terms of education and educational improvement following the Hargreaves report, rater than patting themselves on the back and thinking what a marvellous job they have done so far?
Sir Keith Joseph: As my hon. Friend says, delegation to the boroughs would have been an option, but the Government have decided that there should be a unitary

1129
authority, although we are building into the main legislation a right of review. I can agree with my hon. Friend that some Labour leadership posts seem to be precarious. I must take the opportunity once again to pay tribute to a great deal of the contents and spirit of the recently published Hargreaves report of ILEA, where so much common ground with the Government is apparent on the pursuit of quality.
Mr. John Fraser: May I put it to the Secretary of State that if he persists in the proposals in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", under which the Government will have control for three years over the expenditure of ILEa, all that he is doing is creating a new breed of municipal eunuchs who will be elected to perform a duty but then will not have the power to do it because of restrictions contained in other legislation?
Sir Keith Joseph: Once again I must say that this subject has been debated by the House.
Mr. Richard Tracey: In drafting this undoubtedly unique piece of local government legislation will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that proper provision must be made to ensure that expenditure is only on education and not on propaganda, advertising or information supply?
Sir Keith Joseph: It will be open to my hon. Friend to put those arguments when the main Bill comes before the House.
Mr. Tony Banks: I do not welcome the announcement, and I do not see why the House should be grateful, because the Inner London education authority is already a directly elected local authority and I speak as a directly elected member of it. I suggest that the Secretary of State should not expect to receive gratitude. Will he look carefully at the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill? Will he not have to amend it because the last paragraph makes a direct reference to the form of elections for ILEA, which is appointment via the boroughs? In those circumstances, that measure will have to be amended. Will he confirm——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Banks: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there was no mention of scrapping elections for ILEA or the GLC in the Conservative election manifesto or in the Gracious Speech? Now he is giving his right hon. Friends something of a conundrum.
Sir Keith Joseph: I appreciate any welcome, even if it is not unanimous. I do not think that what I have announced calls for any amendment to the paving Bill. The decisions following this afternoon's announcement will be involved in the main Bill.
Mr. Robin Squire: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his statement, which I believe will increase the accountability of those administering education in inner London to those whom they seek to serve? In a similar vein, will he consider in the detail the possibility of a proportion of those thus
1130
elected being elected each year, and also having a proportional system of election to increase further accountability?
Sir Keith Joseph: That is a perfectly viable option to put to the House and to the Government when we consider the main Bill.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I associate the Liberal party in London and nationally with the welcome that is due to the Secretary of State not only for being persuaded to retain direct elections but for improving the system? I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that a great disservice is being done to the educational needs of children in inner London by capping and cutting. If the proposals that are before the House for a change in the authority next year, a suspension of the elections, an interim authority and then new elections, are implemented, they will cause untold disruption. Will the Secretary of State accept that it would be opportune for him and his right hon. Friends to consider introducing different proposals?
Sir Keith Joseph: Once again I have to say that although those arguments have a certain validity, they are not for this occasion.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I welcome the intellectual honesty and political courage of this statement, which is typical of my right hon. Friend. In the Bill, can he suggest that the direct elections should take place at the same time as the borough elections, and can he use his power of persuasiveness on his colleagues to ensure that this important precedent extends to the supervision of other London-wide functions that will continue to be provided after the abolition of the GLC?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is trying to seduce me with his kind words into saying that it is not a decision for a unique service, and I cannot go along with that. The argument about the actual detail of the election will be appropriate at a later stage.
Mr. Tom Cox: The Secretary of State has twice referred to the right of review. Is he aware that when this right of review is incorporated into the legislation there will have to be clear guidelines as to what he means? Is he further aware that when the London borough of Wandsworth attempted to pull its education services out of ILEA, to be controlled by that local authority, there was enormous confusion and great bitterness was created among teachers and parents? Surely this is not what London wants to face in the coming years.
Sir Keith Joseph: There will be ample opportunity for such discussions on the main Bill, in connection with any element in it giving the power of review.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: In congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I know that I speak for the vast majority of teachers, parents and pupils in inner London. They feel that at last there is a chance to have in London an education authority that is financially accountable to the ratepayers and responsive to the educational need in London. This is worth while, but I should not wish the House to be under the impression that the advocacy of direct elections in any way endorses the administration of ILEA at the moment
Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that what I have announced carries any such endorsement. The Government's views on the qualities, disadvantages and demerits of the service in London are well known.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the magnificent campaign of parents, non-teaching staff, teaching staff and community organisations in defence of ILEA has been a campaign for democracy in London, and also a campaign to recognise the great areas of deprivation in London, in which higher educational spending is needed to overcome the problems? Following his earlier remarks, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement that he will lessen central Government control of ILEA after his new administration comes into operation so that members of staff, both teaching and non-teaching, and community organisations can continue to expect the high standards of service from ILEA that they have enjoyed for many years?
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is evidently yet another person under the illusion that ILEA, or its replacement as a unitary education authority, was at risk. There was no threat to it. The consultations were about the implementation of the replacement. As for the rate-capping possibilities, I and the Government wish only that the conduct of ILEA and a handful of other authorities had not been such as to force the Government to take this action.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his answer about what he called the detail of the next three years? Does he not recognise that in that period some children will complete the whole of their nursery education, and that many children will complete half their secondary education, so it will be a key period? He appears to be having three separate bodies responsible for the administration of inner London education during that
1132
period. He says that this will have to wait for the main Bill, but that Bill will not be law until half way through that three-year period.
Therefore, is it not essential that he tells us now how inner London education will be administered? There will be enough difficulty in carrying out the administration with the Government's proposals for cutting funds, let alone for having three separate bodies. Is that not a recipe for chaos? The right hon. Gentleman must tell the House either now or next week what will happen.
Will the right hon. Gentleman show his customary good grace and congratulate Mrs. Morrell, ILEA, the parents and everyone else in the campaign to save democracy in inner London? Will he remember that that campaign was based on the fact that those people wanted good standards and knew that a democratic, directly elected body would give them those good standards?
Sir Keith Joseph: I ask the House to accept that I am not underestimating the importance of the questions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred by referring to them as details —I have more than once said, "albeit important details". The Government wish to be scrupulous in limiting the paving Bill to do what its title, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, implies. The purpose of the Bill is to pave the way towards the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, but not to anticipate the decisions that Parliament will be asked to take next year on the basis of the substantive Bill.
I must resist the temptation to congratulate Mrs. Morrell on the things that the hon. Gentleman has spelt out. However, I am willing to risk my reputation, such as it is, by congratulating Mrs. Morrell and her colleagues and all ILEA on commissioning a report, the Hargreaves report, which seems to set out arguments on which all the House will agree and which unites ILEA and the Government in seeking a better quality of education for the children in inner London.

Orders of the Day
  London Regional Transport Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New Clause 10

  ANNUAL BUSINESS PLANS
  '(1) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport in each accounting year to prepare, and cause to be published in such manner as they think fit, a plan containing their proposals with respect to the conduct of their undertaking and the businesses of their subsidiaries during the period to which the plan relates.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the plan shall give such information relevant to their proposals, and deal with such other matters, as London Regional Transport consider appropriate for presenting their proposals in the context of the past and current performance and policies of themselves and their subsidiaries.
  (3) In preparing the plan London Regional Transport shall have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the form and content of the plan and the period to which it is to relate.'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (1), leave out from 'proposals' to end and insert
  'for the next three years ("the relevant period") with respect to——

  (a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them, or by agreement with them, by other persons; and

  (b) the general level and structure of fares to be charged for those services, and the general level of charges to be made for those facilities, so far as they are to be charged, made or otherwise determined by London Regional Transport.'.

  Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (2), at end insert—
  '(2A) The plan shall be accompanied by estimates of—

  (a) the cost to London Regional Transport of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals;

  (b) the benefits to potential users of those services and facilities.'.

  Amendment (c) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3), at end insert
  'and shall consult about such proposals contained in the plan with——

  (a) the local authorities of greater London; and

  (b) the Passengers Committee.'.

  Mrs. Chalker: Hon. Members who were involved in the Committee will recall that we had extensive discussions about planning for London Regional Transport, and what information should be available. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) played a part in this, as did the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). They will recall that I gave an undertaking on 14 February to look carefully at the idea that they had suggested for an annual business plan so that in discussing the future of the LRT for a forthcoming year, there would be more information than hon. Members feared might otherwise be available.
  1134
  New clause 10 fulfils that undertaking because it imposes a requirement to produce an annual business plan. The clause is fairly self-explanatory. It requires London Regional Transport to produce this annual plan covering its activities and those of its subsidiaries in the context of their current and past performance and in the light of any guidance on the plan given by the Secretary of State. I shall go into this in a little more detail because some hon. Members will, in reading our proceedings, want to understand a little more as to why this was thought necessary.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East knows that I readily accepted this suggestion from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. However, the Opposition's amendments, on which no doubt the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will be speaking later, show that they are never satisfied, however far one seeks to meet their points. They want plans specifically to be required to cover the general level of transport services and facilities that the LRT is providing. They want the general level and structure of fares and charges to be included, and somehow they want the annual plan to cover the three-year period, let alone the fact that we have a strategic statement, as provided by clause 7, which will cover the longer period anyway.
  The Opposition also want the annual plan to include estimates of costs related to provisions of the plan and benefits to potential users. Doubtless, we shall learn more from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East when he speaks. However, in a word, the Opposition want to superimpose on the planning regime of London Regional Transport nothing less than the detailed planning requirements of the Transport Act 1983 without there being the same need for them.
  I shall explain why the amendments are misguided before discussing our intentions in more detail. Hon. Members must realise that we require LRT to publish an annual business plan in addition to undertaking the many other actions demanded of it. That will mean that LRT will be subject to the most rigorous statutory regime for planning, consultation and information of any nationalised industry. Although I have always said that there may be room for improvement in some of the planning of nationalised industries, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East seeks to push me to make measures far in excess of what it is reasonable to require of LRT. We have already built into the Bill unprecedented opportunities for involving in LRT's affairs Londoners and those hon. Members who represent them.
  I shall detail those opportunities. Provision is made for a strategy statement to be made at least every three years as outlined in clause 7. It will involve full consultation. As hon. Members who served in Committee know, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) tabled amendments requiring that statement to be published at least every three years, and we gladly accepted that measure. In addition, there is to be the new improved passengers' committee with new powers—for the first time combining British Rail passengers' interests with those of LRT. As stated in clause 33, an annual report will be presented to Parliament. Parliament will conduct an annual debate on the ratepayers levy order. There is also a statutory requirement for LRT to publish information on fares and services. On top of all that, we have agreed that there should be an annual business plan.

  1135
  It is ridiculous for the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East to suggest that we are not prepared to have proper discussion or, as he described it in Committee, accountability. We are in danger of making LRT what could be described as eggbound, because we are requiring it to produce a far greater amount of information than normally required of a nationalised industry. Sometimes I think that the hon. Gentleman will never be satisfied unless he has a referendum on every matter. That is not my view of how we should run a business.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: It is a little early, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Cohen: If the Minister feels that LRT will be eggbound by being forced to produce all those plans, why did the Government require the GLC to produce all those plans and requirements?
  Mrs. Chalker: As usual the hon. Gentleman is a little anticipatory. I shall be coming to that point in a few minutes, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient.
  It is not right that any Minister in any Government, let alone any chairman of any company, acting responsibly should say that there will never be a change. That is not consistent with some of the changes business must make. We have sought to make as clear as has ever been made in any nationalised industry the nature of the consultation process and the meaning of the strategy document, annual plan and annual report. The passengers' committee will be involved in a wider range of responsibilities than its two predecessors.
  I shall discuss the position that underlines the thoughts of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and some of his friends across the water.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I have not said anything yet.
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is muttering that he has not said anything yet. In more than 100 hours in Committee he filled a good many Hansard columns.
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): He did not say anything then.
  Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend's comment may be the view of some hon. Members. I give the hon. Gentleman a crumb of comfort—occasionally, he was trying to be helpful, although I doubt that he is being helpful this afternoon.
  The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues across the water seem to believe that there cannot be and should not be any change. They appear to be bound up with the view that everything must continue as it has before—there should never be any change of services, even when better services can be provided to meet Londoners' needs. The backdrop to all the discussions on this subject has been a consideration of the services to be provided in the future.
  4.45 pm
  There must be changes in any dynamic business, which is what LRT should be. The hon. Gentleman and his friends must become used to the idea that no business can serve its customers unless it is prepared to face change. The way in which the hon. Gentleman would dictate the detailed content of the strategic statements, annual plans and reports is not a matter for Ministers to decide.
  1136
  Ministers should give clear guidance, set out the objectives clearly and agree the overall financial plans, but LRT's management must work out the details.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is better to ask this question now. She made accusations about people across the water and change. In my constituency I have had the privilege of opening a brand new railway station at West Ham; two more stations on the north London line have been installed; and a new crosstown link has been opened and is to be electrified. All those measures were instigated and financed by the GLC. With such examples, about which the hon. Lady should know, how can she make such accusations?
  Mrs. Chalker: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the clauses designed to enable the London boroughs to contribute to the improvement of stations, thereby taking over the role which the hon. Gentleman described as having been carried out by the GLC, with British Rail. Those friends across the water in the GLC have always wanted changes for extra provision, but they have never been prepared to accept that, from time to time, some services may change and new demands might force a change on the pattern of services provided for Londoners' transport.
  Mr. Spearing: Cuts.
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman intervened earlier and is now beginning to chide me. I said that it would not be right for Ministers to dictate the day-to-day running or planning of LRT. It is not for the Secretary of State or me to dictate precisely the contents of the annual plan, which is what the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East seek to do.
  I have noticed what the hon. Gentleman wanted in the past. We have listened to a number of interesting assertions in Committee and, perhaps more worryingly, outside the Committee. One statement I wish to make to Londoners today needs repeating, because the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has not accepted what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said several weeks ago on this issue. Although I believe that it is wrong for me to try to forecast precisely the contents of LRT's business plan, I can give Londoners an assurance about what it will not contain. That plan will not contain a list of 33 tube stations and 32 bus routes that Londoners have been told will close when the Government assume responsibility. That is no part of the plan for LRT. We have no plans to close any stations or any routes. We have no hit list and we have never had such a list. The claims that have emanated from the GLC have been without foundation. They have worried people, just as the GLC's other campaigns have done.
  There is no hit list and there will not be, and the financial provision that the Government have approved gives no support to the GLC's allegations about the future of LT. For 1984–85 the Government have approved £300 million of subsidy to LT, which is close to LT's budget figure in its three-year plan. There never was and never has been any truth in the scurrilous rumours put about by Capital, the GLC-financed campaign wagon with Les Huckfield, a former Labour Member for Parliament, at its head.

  1137
  We are saying to London that there is no hit list and that there is £300 million of subsidy for LT to use wisely. It is up to LT, and LRT in the future, to plan its way on the basis of that £300 million subsidy.
  I told the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that I wanted to get some facts on the record. I have told him exactly what we are doing with this new clause and that I do not believe that his amendment is necessary or desirable. I wish to emphasise what we are doing in the Bill because it is easy to get Londoners' involvement out of perspective. The main strategic planning document for LRT is the clause 7 statement. Plainly, the annual plan will fit in with it. The strategic statement will undergo full consultation and provide a long-term planning framework. It is because we believe and agree that there is merit in ensuring an annual flow of information about LRT's plans, particularly about the annual debate on the ratepayers' levy, that we have decided that there should be an annual plan. It can focus on the year ahead. I expect it to cover a slightly longer period and to look further forward while giving detail of the year ahead. It will clearly be concerned with LRT's performance and its forecast of its business performance for the year ahead. We do not want the rigid requirements that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to impose. They are not necessary for LRT.
  I emphasised more than once in Committee that the 1983 requirements, to which the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred in his intervention, were drawn up in a completely different context. It was one where the local authorities had to make an annual determination of revenue subsidy in the light of guidance given to them by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State's guidance was to be given consistently across LTE and the PTEs there had to be some reasonably well formulated basis on which decisions could be taken. That was the context for the requirement for the three-year rolling plan by LTE and the PTEs in other areas of the country together with the stipulation that there would be some assessment of the benefits resulting from their plans. It was not in the context of the Government setting the level of available subsidy for LRT. That is why I say that that detail is not required in the same way in the future for LRT.
  LRT will be a nationalised industry. As I said at the beginning, in the Bill we are going much further in requiring a specific planning regime and the publication of various documents relating to the business than for any other nationalised industry. Clearly, LRT will provide financial projections in the light of its policies. The annual plan will be consistent with the clause 7 statement and will fit in with the corporate plans. I shall not commit the detail of LRT's three-year plan. That is for LRT's management, just as LT has done it in the past. I do not believe that it is necessary to specify that the annual plan should contain information on services and fares, when there is a similar requirement for the year ahead provided in clause 29.
  If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East takes clause 29 together with the new clause, he will see that he has all that he requires in his amendment. He seeks to overdo it again with his second amendment when he says that the plan should contain information about costs. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been. Perhaps he has never had to draw up one of these plans. It would be impossible to put forward a viable plan, or for it to be in any way complete, unless it contained that information in
  1138
  the first place. It is therefore superfluous and unnecessary to require it in legislation. The hon. Gentleman also wants wording about benefits included. It may well be that LRT will include information resulting from cost-benefit analyses, but it is only one of the many techniques that can be deployed. It happens to be one used by LT and the PTEs at present, but it is not necessarily the best or the only way to assess the value of services. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to look wider than to insist on that inclusion.
  If that amendment were carried, it would make it difficult to make comparisons with BR's performance because there is no direct comparability with the way in which it does its planning and that currently done by LT. As the hon. Gentleman knows from our previous debate, we wish to achieve better integration, so common assessment may be part of that. Despite his current thinking, it may not be the wisest thing to do to cut out that possibility by insisting on a specific inclusion in the new clause.
  The hon. Gentleman's third amendment deals with consultation. There is full scope for consultation in the strategy statements. There will be the usual continual exchange of views and information with interested parties on the other documents that LRT will produce.
  There is no time for a useful or meaningful process of consultation with the public on the annual business cycle. I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman what that cycle is, because I do not believe that he has understood what happens throughout the annual process. February will see a debate in the House on the ratepayers' levy order. Between March and June we shall have LRT in consultation on the strategy statements in those years where there is to be such a statement. In June LRT will publish its annual report and accounts. LRT will also publish a strategy statement in the years when there is to be one. In September we shall have approval of LRT's corporate plan. In October-November LRT's annual business plan will be published. In November there will be the announcement of the external financing limit for LRT, and it will then begin to finalise its budget for the following year. In December LRT will receive its investment allocation and the Secretary of State will publish the ratepayers' levy order for debate in the following February.
  That is an extensive and thorough programme of consultation. We should not seek to tie the hands of LRT's management and restrict it further by detailing some completely unnecessary and superfluous parts of the annual business plan. To require LRT to publish that annual business plan will mean that it will be subject to the most rigorous statutory regime for planning, consultation and information of any of the nationalised industries. The plan will be published every autumn in good time for the annual parliamentary debate on the ratepayers' levy. No one can claim that the public will not have the information that they need and no one can claim that LRT will be unaccountable. Our proposals mean that LRT will be more accountable to London travellers than ever before and that the information will be more readily available.
  I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment to new clause 10 and accept that the new clause answers the point that they made in Committee and is a major and generous provision in its own right.
  Mr. Snape: The speech that we have just heard from the Minister of State is in many respects a typical one from the Government — that if it is necessary to make concessions it is also necessary to conceal the concessions by any amount of bluff and bluster from the Dispatch Box. It is all too sadly typical of Ministers that the speech that we have just heard showed more concern with scoring imaginary political points, even before I had contributed a word to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, than with attempting to explain why it was felt necessary to bring forward the new clause.
  5 pm
  The Minister of State asked Opposition Members to consider new clause 10 carefully. She said that I was never satisfied and that whatever proposals she made I would denounce and reject them as unsatisfactory. After Christmas I spent many hours with the hon. Lady discussing the Bill. We sat late into the evening on many occasions. I confess, to echo the right hon. Lady's words, that I usually went home unsatisfied. But surely the role of an Opposition is to be dissatisfied; a role to which the hon. Lady will become accustomed on the happy day when we can remove this bunch of frauds from Government offices throughout London. [Interruption.]
  Perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport is concerned at being described as one of a bunch of frauds. I shall come round to him in a moment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is concerned at being left out, in which case I shall certainly see to him. I am sure that if I had used unparliamentary language, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have called me to order.
  I believe that the Government were elected on a fraudulent prospectus. The Bill before us is fraudulent. The Minister of State's speech was fraudulent. I am eminently justified in saying that of anyone responsible for that triple act of fraudulence.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I shall anticipate the hon. Gentleman and say that he is steering very near the wind.
  Mr. Spearing rose——
  Mr. Snape: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has not the hon. Lady—I am sure of her integrity—been deluded? A moment ago she said that London Regional Transport would be more accountable to users than ever before. Has she not been defrauded into thinking that that is so? How can London Members of Parliament ever substitute for the scrutiny and activity by elected Greater London councillors of London Regional Transport'?
  Mr. Snape: To answer my hon. Friend, perhaps it is a case of self-delusion rather than fraud in relation to the Minister of State, although not the Secretary of State. I am always careful in our debates to separate the motivation that spurs on the two of them.
  To talk of LRT being a dynamic organisation stretches the Opposition's credulity. During his long career in the House the Secretary of State for Transport has had much to say about the nationalised industries. He has not used the word "dynamic" in relation to them, yet we are expected to believe that that description will apply to LRT.
  In dealing with an earlier point made by my hon. Friend the member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the
  1140
  facilities provided by the GLC, and in reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about the extra services that it provides, the Minister of State said that the London boroughs would take care of those facilities. I do not wish to sail too close to the wind which you have warned me is gathering offshore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but does the Minister of State really expect us to believe that when the Government are engaged in reducing the money available to local authorities?
  The Government are engaged in a rate-capping exercise against local authorities which engage in such expense. Is the Minister really saying that the clause will enable London boroughs to subsidise bus and rail services that cross borough boundaries? If so, she had better write another new clause into the Bill. It is news to the Opposition.
  We know what the Bill does not contain, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may be trading on your habitual tolerance to say that the hon. Lady was moving a little wide of the new clause when she said that the Government did not have a hit list of stations to be closed or bus routes to be withdrawn. She implied that the list—I have seen it—was a figment of someone's fertile imagination across the river, as she put it. But none of us has ever said in the House or, so far as I am aware, outside it, that the hit list is in an office in Marsham street.
  All hon. Members know, although some Conservative Members would be unwilling to confess it, that it is not necessary to provide a long hit list of threatened services when one controls the purse strings of a nationalised industry. What will happen to LRT happens now to nationalised industries such as British Rail, for which the Secretary of State also has responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to say that a railway line should close.
  We discussed the Settle to Carlisle line a few weeks ago —I hope that that is not too far away from the Greater London area, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one is saying that the Government are detailing the lines, services and bus routes to be withdrawn. They will merely ensure, by reducing the amount of finance available to London Regional Transport, that the nasty and squalid decisions to close the lines and withdraw the services will be taken by someone else. That is the usual cowardly way out that the Government adopt when dealing with nationalised industries.
  The Minister of State also talked about how ready she was to consider the points raised by the Opposition in Committee in relation to the publication of the plans. Those hon. Members who, like me, spent much time in Committee will remember the discussion on whether the word "plans" should be in the Bill. It was thought initially that the word "statement" would be sufficient, and there was some banter across the Floor about when a statement could be a plan, and vice versa.
  I intervened briefly in Committee on a group of amendments, the principal one of which was moved by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I said:
  "I am looking to the Minister of State for some reasons why the provisions of the 1983 Act"—
  that is, the Transport Act 1983—
  "which required annual plans from the GLC, have been torn up?"
  The Minister of State replied:
  "It is not necessary to write that into the legislation when we are forming a system with the clear intention that the annual

  1141
  business planning cycle will be carried out as it is for all other nationalised industries." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 February 1984; c. 416.]
  That is not quite what she said today, when she fairly admitted that the new clause was a concession and a movement away from the Government's original position.
  The Minister, however, took exception to our amendments (a), (b) and (c), which merely seek to widen the Government's belated concession a little. On many occasions in Committee, and again in the Chamber, the hon. Lady said that the matters outlined in the amendments were better dealt with by management and that such detail should not be dealt with here. I hope that Conservative Members will agree that it is entirely legitimate in relation to LRT to inquire, as amendment (b) provides, about
  "the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them, or by agreement with them, by other persons".
  I do not think that that is delving too deeply into day-to-day management details.
  Similarly, amendment (b) provides:
  "The plan shall be accompanied by estimates of … the cost to London Regional Transport of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals".
  I do not think that that could be regarded as interfering unduly in the day-to-day management functions of LRT.
  On fares and services, the Minister of State rightly says that there is provision in clause 29 for such matters to be detailed. I gently remind her—I always try to be gentle on these occasions—that the clause merely requires that the local authorities and other bodies be informed annually of the future level of fares. We all know what that means. It will be the kind of consultation undertaken by other nationalised industries such as British Rail. A fare increase will be announced once a year. That is the only consultation that generally takes place now and I believe that that will be the situation under clause 29. That is why we seek to amend the new clause.
  I should not have thought that the Minister of State or even her boss could take exception to any of the provisions in the amendments. We were careful not to try to push the Minister of State too far, as she accused me earlier of doing. We were extremely careful in drafting amendments (a) and (b). In fact, the wording is not ours at all. It is lifted entirely from the 1983 Act, for which the Minister herself voted, so there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the amendments. I am therefore somewhat at a loss to understand why the Minister of State was so indignant about the amendments before any Opposition Members had even spoken to them. If the Secretary of State intends to explain that when he winds up the debate I shall be 'delighted to hear his comments. It is always interesting to hear him explain legislation for which he is responsible, so I can hug myself with anticipatory glee in the knowledge that he will enlighten the House later in the proceedings.
  5.15 pm
  We believe that the new clause is unsatisfactory as it stands. That does not mean that the situation would be satisfactory even if the Government accepted all three amendments. Amendment (c), for which we are entirely guilty, also does not place any particularly onerous burdens on LRT. It merely provides that the authority
  "shall consult about such proposals contained in the plan with

  (a) the local authorities of greater London; and

  (b) the Passengers Committee."

  1142
  I did not think that the Conservative party would take exception to that, but I must have been wrong, judging from the Minister's earlier diatribe, which was vitriolic by her standards.
  Mr. John Maples: As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the present board's reservations about the new proposals is on the amount of consultation required. If the provisions for the statement under the Bill require the authority to consult 33 local authorities every year as well, I should have thought that there would be a serious danger of the board having nothing to do but consult.
  Mr. Snape: That is a reasonable point. It is always more comfortable for the management of any industry, public or private, not to have to consult anyone. The more people who have to be consulted, the more work is involved. Most nationalised industry management is as reluctant as private industry management to consult the people who work for it or the customers who use its services. It is thus natural that the board would be somewhat reluctant to embrace a wider consultative procedure.
  As we made clear many times in Committee, however, the difference here is that there will be no elected tier of government between the Secretary of State and the professional managers of LRT. The consultation envisaged in amendment (c) is therefore all the more necessary.
  Mr. Maples rose——
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has had one bite at this already. I wish to conclude my remarks shortly, as I hope that the debate will be over in an hour and a half.
  The new clause is certainly a concession and I understand the Minister's feelings about having to make it. The Government have had a bad couple of days. There was the concession for pensioners yesterday and the ILEA concession earlier today, so it is understandable that the Minister should feel a little cross at having to make another concession now.
  Mrs. Chalker: I am not cross.
  Mr. Snape: I know that the Minister is not cross now, but she went through an impressive display of synthetic indignation earlier on. Three goals against the Government in a matter of hours must be a little upsetting. It was clear from the start that the legislation was appalling, but in our habitual desire to be placatory and to improve the legislation we tentatively suggested the three amendments, two of which are drawn from the 1983 Act.
  In the 1983 Act the Government laid down that the metropolitan councils and London Transport had to produce three-year plans containing information about the level of transport services and the level and structure of fares and charges. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us why things are so different for LRT. If such plans were required of democratically elected authorities in London and elsewhere by the Government's own legislation, what is so special about the management of LRT that it should be outside those provisions?
  If the Bill becomes law, the only democratic body that will have any say in London's transport facilities will be this place. I do not wish to go over our previous debates on this point, but if there was any agreement between both sides of the Committee it was on the fact that the

  1143
  provisions for debating such matters in this House are palpably inadequate. I realise that that measure of agreement did not go so far as voting for an Opposition amendment, but there was at least some agreement about the unsatisfactory nature of debating these detailed matters.
  The Minister is now saying that, given that there will be professional management, democratic accountability is no longer necessary or needed——
  Mrs. Chalker: No.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Lady says that that is not the case. Whether or not she knows it, that will be the effect of resisting these amendments. I admit that the impact has been somewhat ameliorated by new clause 10. I do not wish to be too rude about the Minister, but she was not as helpful in Committee as she implies. I do not complain about that. The proper standard of debate is what we have come to expect from the hon. Lady. Nevertheless, the concession in new clause 10, though welcome, regrettably does not go far enough.
  I have not mentioned the fares question in any detail, nor do I wish to do so. The Minister has said that fares under LRT will not have to rise beyond the rate of inflation. If so, LRT should be required to produce fairly detailed plans setting out how it intends to maintain fare increases at or about the level of inflation. Is that an unreasonable demand to place on professional management? The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) probably thinks that it is — [Interruption.] Perhaps he does not. Will the hon. Gentleman nod if he agrees and shake his head if he disagrees, rather than doing it the other way round, because he knows from our debates in Committee how easy it is to confuse me?
  If, as the Opposition believe, the main reason for the Bill is to cut the amount of public support for London Transport by raising fares and cutting services, Parliament has a right to know the basis on which those decisions are made. It is not unreasonable to ask that the amendments be accepted so that that basis can be known.
  It is a welcome relief that at last this supposedly free market Government have admitted that some planning is necessary and that occasional statements will not do. But, even with the benefit of that dawn of common sense, the plans could be drawn up in a way that is virtually meaningless. Unless there is a specific requirement on LRT to produce meaningful plans—in the same way as the 1983 Act requires the metropolitian counties to produce their plans—which contain the things envisaged in our amendments, its annual business plan will be no more than a budget. It will therefore be impossible for hon. Members who take an interest in these matters to have any detailed discussion in the short time available.
  We look forward to the Secretary of State's return so that he can reply to the debate. We hope that the quality of his reply will have improved somewhat since the end of our Committee proceedings. We still believe that these three eminently reasonable amemdments, two of which are extracted from the Transport Act 1983, are well worth supporting.
  Mr. Peter Fry: I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), especially his opening diatribe when the words "fraud" and "fraudulent" were much used. It lies ill in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to talk
  1144
  of fraudulent behaviour when the GLC, while pretending to do its best for London, was increasing the rates of many businesses that could ill afford them—costing jobs and increasing the rates of many people who never used public transport. I therefore hope that such language is not necessary.
  The hon. Gentleman is one of those Opposition spokesmen who continually demand concessions, but when they get them see them as a form of weakness. That is not a constructive way in which to oppose any piece of legislation.
  I was a member of the former Select Committee which investigated in considerable detail the problems of London's transport and compared it with many other cities. Both sides of the Committee quoted continually from the report. There is a weakness in the Bill, which is outlined in the amendments. I genuinely believe that in their attempt to control the amount of money to subsidise London's public transport, and because they have set their face against any form of local government representation, the Government have led themselves into a highly complicated system of strategies and plans. There will be a certain amount of consultation, but they have had to refuse other consultation. As a result, they are depending far too much on Members of this House to deal with matters which in all other parts of the country are properly the concern of local government representatives.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State knows that to be my view. I therefore have some sympathy with those who make that charge. Far from continually adding to the plans and statements that London Regional Transport must draw up, we ought to be allowing it to get on with the job of running London's public transport. If the people concerned must continually ask everybody else what they think and are forced to look over their shoulders, I sincerely believe that they will not use their time for the purposes for which they are employed.
  This arises from the fact that we have established a kind of administration that will be unique in the United Kingdom. When the Select Committee looked at this, it recommended that there should be some kind of local government input. We did not say that it had to be controlled by the London boroughs—in fact, we looked at a somewhat wider area than the GLC boundary—but we felt that a body should be established to which certain plans should be referred—perhaps even budgets — so that there was a clear distinction between the input from those who represented the people of London and those who run London Transport.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that LRT is at one stage removed from those who are running the tubes and buses, but neither of those organisations has the kind of input about which I and, to be fair, Opposition Members have been talking. We do not always disagree on transport matters, although we may disagree on most other things.
  5.30 pm
  Therefore, although I shall of course support new clause 10, I am afraid that we are going to find, as this Bill passes into law, that we shall continually be bedevilled by having made the fundamental error in the first place of not allowing in the control and discussion of London's public transport, a rightful place for locally elected representatives. I say that as one who supported the Government on the Rates Bill. I was not one of the rebels.

  1145
  Furthermore, I believe that, if we continually set up in this country all kinds of public bodies, to some of which local councillors can belong and to some of which they cannot, we shall not have any consistent form of administration. We have not yet said how on earth we are going to deal with the metropolitan counties when they come to be abolished. We should perhaps have taken a little more time thinking about the way in which this Bill should be framed and the kind of new institutions that we were going to set up.
  I am entirely in favour of the three-year strategy, but it must be an effective policy, a rolling programme. This is desperately needed in London; it is in many other parts of the country, but particularly in London. When we were examining this matter we found that London was suffering from years of neglect, that the swing of the political pendulum meant that there was a start in one direction, then a new administration came into the place over the river and the policy went in a totally different direction. It was because the Select Committee, which was an all-party Committee, felt very strongly indeed that it was necessary to take party politics out of London's transport that we made the recommendations which I think are still the basis of much of this Bill.
  I think that I have made it clear where I differ from the Government over the way in which they have interpreted our Select Committee report. It is perhaps too late in the proceedings to move further amendments, but I felt it right to put my views on record, and I believe that they are shared by all the members of the Select Committee who signed that particular report.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It must obviously be welcome that, from the position which the Government held when we started debating this Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee, when there was a long debate as to whether we should not have more planning for transport in London than was provided by a scheme which only allowed for a statement, an outline, a very vague idea of general proposals as to what should be in the planning intentions of the new transport authority — the Secretary of State and his managers, London Regional Transport—we should now have a plan.
  The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was one who supported the amendment first moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), which said—it was the London Transport Executive which first made the point to us as members of the Committee—that what is needed is the ability to plan in detail and present a plan that can be discussed from year to year. We started by saying that this must be at least every three years.
  Then we accepted — the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was quite right to say that that was the direction which the all-party Committee said should be followed — that there needed to be annual statements which were the subject first of consultation and thereafter of implementation, so that at all times the planning of transport in London would not be bedevilled by the two things that had bedevilled it for many years.
  One was the lack of strategic direction. It is a fact that a criticism that the Government could rightfully make of a local authority planning function was that it was subject
  1146
  to changes of direction with every major change of political control. That will inevitably be the case if local authorities are allowed to retain control of public transport.
  The other major problem was that increasingly in recent years, every time a plan was embarked upon, there came an intervention from on high which said, "Stop," or, "You cannot have that amount of money," or, "You are going to have to adjust the amount of the travel supplementary grant," for example. All that the planners, the people managing London Transport, might be able to do was liable to be thrown aside by an intervention, which made planning impossible. Quite clearly, that was a totally illogical and clearly unsatisfactory way in which to organise the planning of transport in London.
  It is clear to all of those who have followed this debate that the Liberal party, like the Labour party, resists entirely the idea that London should suddenly become the one place in Britain which, because of its capital city significance, has a nationalised industry as opposed to a local authority as the planning authority. We resist, and shall continue to resist, the idea that the Secretary of State or his successors, supported by their own appointees, should make the decisions. We resist this particularly because it means that in the direction, in planning terms, of London Transport, the necessary account need not be taken of other plans that are formulated for the area which we are talking about.
  We debated many amendments in Committee. There were amendments designed to oblige the Secretary of State, as transport authority and the London Regional Transport board, to look at documents such as the Greater London development plan, and to fit the planning of London's transport into the other statutory plans which circumscribe what is going to go on in this capital city —where the people are going to be living, where the houses are, where the green belt may or may not begin and end. It is no good divorcing transport and its planning from the planning of the other services.
  One of our fundamental criticisms concerns the problem when a nationalised industry suddenly replaces a local authority. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, very validly, when one starts creating a different authority for each different service the danger is that each body planning a service gets autonomy and authenticity of its own, and sets out upon its own course without taking account of the other things going on around it.
  When we started off with no indication other than a strategy statement, with information given separately about the plans in relation to fares, with no opportunity for consultation on a year-to-year rolling plan, we were rightly highly critical. That is why the concession that has been made, the pulling back from the brink, is so welcome. Obviously, it is the second major concession of this sort —which, happily, will result in a better Bill—made by the Government since the Bill started its passage through the House. But it does not, of course, go far enough; that is why we support amendments to this clause in the names of Labour Members.
  The thing that matters to people who use the transport, in whose interest the transport is being planned, is the way in which fares and the structure of fares are to be decided. They are the things which the consultative bodies —there are at the moment two for transport in London, but they will become one — want to be consulted about. They ought to be part of that planning process.

  1147
  One of the thrusts of the attack from the Opposition on this Bill is that the traditional forum for the passenger, the user, to be consulted and to have his or her say has been reduced in effectiveness. There is to be no passenger representative on the board of London Regional Transport, no representative with specific accountability on any particular issue—although the Minister conceded that she would make sure, if she could, that one of the people on the board had a particular interest in the concerns of the disabled; that, obviously, is welcome. There will be nobody whose specific interest it is to ensure that the consumer voice — the voice of the fare-paying passenger, normally the London resident—is represented in the planning process, and the fares structure matters greatly in that process.
  There have been changes of great relevance in recent years in transport matters, many of them determined by where one lives. I have previously said that, depending on whether one lives 200 yards south or north of the Elephant and Castle, one pays a different fare within the whole of the central London area. Obviously there must be divisions between zones; unless we adopt the Paris system, which provides for a much larger central area, and, under which, only if one strays to the far edges of it does one pay a supplement. Using a single ticket, that system is much easier to operate, and perhaps—although such a system is not to be adopted—there can be consultation about that.
  It is obvious that we cannot seek to lay down here and now every jot and tittle of every line of every paragraph of every page of every plan, but it is essential that any plan makes clear the obligations on the transport managers. Why is it necessary for the plan to be in considerable detail and for there to be a proper consultation process involving local authorities and a passengers committee, with the details of fares and structures all being clearly defined? The answer is that it will be impossible for anybody, on behalf of the consumer, the passenger, to challenge a failure by LRT to do something that it should be doing; that possibility is ruled out by another provision in the Bill.
  That power will not reside in the consumer. Nobody — be it Bromley council, a passenger consultative group, a group of ratepayers or a body of transport users — will be able to challenge the matter in court by saying, "LRT is failing in its duty." The Government are taking the major constitutional step of depriving the public, in transport terms, of that right.
  This has never previously been a nationalised industry; buses and tubes have represented a local authority service. It is all the more important that the plans should involve people and should go into considerable detail. That is the major reason why the planning system should be as provided for in the amendment.
  Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman says that never before have the buses and tubes been organised in this way. I believe that for many years prior to 1969 they were organised as an authority appointed by the Secretary of State and responsible to him. The hon. Gentleman's memory may be longer than mine, but I cannot recollect whether there were many complaints at that time of any lack of democratic control or that proper public services were not being provided because of a lack of accountability. Does he have evidence to show that there were such criticisms at that time?
  Mr. Hughes: The Select Committee pointed out that there was enormous advantage in having on the transport authority representatives of the user, because that prevented problems arising because of decisions being made without the user's participation. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) will recall that the structure proposed in the Select Committee report would have included the Secretary of State and his nominees, local authority nominees, consumer nominees and others.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was a time when, under LRT's predecessor, certain services had a direct line of command from the Minister of the day. But that system was thought to be unsatisfactory. There followed a change of system — which the hon. Gentleman argues resulted in too many political swings —and today the consensus is that a substantial part of the management of public transport should be in the hands of those who use it. They are the people who suffer when things go wrong. They pay for the service, so they have an interest in making sure that it meets their needs.
  In terms of hours per year, we in this House are already the most overworked democracy of any. That means that we will not do justice to the 7 million people who live in London, to those who come in from outside Greater London and to the many who visit the capital city. We will not be able to do justice to them in the short time available for this subject.
  The Minister set out the annual cycle of consultation. While it is a sensible cycle, in that it is important to know when the various stages of the process occur, we need to have added to it the opportunity for a continuing debate about London transport so that it benefits from clearly laid out plans in which people can participate. The public must have a say. The more we can plan and the more the public can have a say in the plan, the better London transport will be.
  5.45 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have pleasure in taking part in this sparkling and electrifying debate——
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman will change all that.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: —which has been enlivened through 120 hours or so of discussion by the magnificent contributions of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who told the Committee ad nauseam of the views and prejudices of the Labour party in approaching anything that has a remote connection with business interests and efficiency.
  It was slightly sad, perhaps, as we listened to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, that we had to hear yet again a speech which one could probably take word for word from what he said on every clause in Standing Committee. However, having got used to it, we could settle down and enjoy it yet again.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East can for once take substantial credit, because it is in response to what he wanted that the Government have introduced this clause. It is to meet his desires and wishes that the commitments have been laid out in clause 10 in a way which, to some of us, was not entirely necessary.
  The clause is a supplement to clause 7, and everything that the hon. Gentleman said in criticism of clause 10—for example, that it does not include consultation, that the process happens annually and that the plans are not given

  1149
  in sufficient detail—must be read in the context of the fact that, every three years, LRT will have to set out, in accordance with the terms of clause 7, precisely those details and to go through precisely those consultation processes which the hon. Gentleman is complaining it does not have to do under clause 10.
  As a matter of business reality, it is not sensible to ask the board of any business — be it a nationalised or private industry or something that is or is not directly responsible to an elected body, whether that body be the GLC or this House—to go through a lengthy annual period of consultation in setting out its plans for the following year within the overall strategic bounds of a plan which it has already provided. That is a three-yearly plan, and is already written, as an obligation, into the statute. I fail to understand the enormous heat, vigour and determination with which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East managed to drive his speech.
  Likewise, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, did not seem to have the business realism that is necessary when dealing with what is essentially a nationalised industry. That is where Opposition Members have failed to grasp the reality behind the clause, which is that the Government are setting up a business administration to run the business of administering London transport.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: That is what we object to.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Of course it is. That is what Socialism objects to. It does not like businesses in the private or the public sector. It does not like businesses independent of Government. It does not like businesses which the Labour party cannot run. The Labour party is looking for power. It wants to interfere in every detail of life in Britain. It is trying to take overall control of everything that happens to every British citizen. Labour Members do not like business. They do not like people to run business or to have the opportunity to take their own initiative in business. They do not like anything about business.
  Mr. Corbyn: It occurs to me that higher fares would mean higher costs for businesses within London which use the transport system. It also occurs to me that if a system is being run on business lines, the motive that is driving it along is profit rather than efficiency in the provision of a service for all the people in London. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to how many services will be destroyed by this new motive behind the administration of London's transport system.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is typical of Labour Members' attitude throughout. I understand the reasons behind what the hon. Gentleman says but I heartily disapprove of and cordially dislike it because it stands for all that I am against.
  The hon. Gentleman made one point which has some merit—I give it that—when he said that higher transport costs would increase the cost to businesses and individuals. Of course they will. Higher travel costs will do precisely that. Against that must be balanced the costs that businesses have to bear if they are the ratepayers who
  1150
  are providing the money which the hon. Gentleman's friends across the river are lavishly spreading across Greater London. They are being ruined by the current policy.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall give way in a moment.
  The hon. Gentleman is saying that to take away that burden from people who do not use the transport and to put it on to people who do is somehow wrong.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Let me finish my point and I shall give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to put both feet more firmly into the bog in which he is already standing. [Interruption.] Lest anyone misunderstandsme, I mean the mire into which he is sinking. The hon. Gentleman is again misrepresenting every word I say.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall give way in a moment.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about higher travel costs as though they were an inevitable consequence. They are not. I do not generally like to give credit to Mr. Livingstone and his friends but it is a perfectly legitimate business proposition to have lower fares to increase the volume of fare-paying travellers and thereby to increase both the revenue within the system and the advantages to those who are using it. It by no means follows that a proper business decision to run London transport efficiently will lead to higher costs. It will do so only if the present volume of travel can take an additional cost and thereby reduce the losses which are otherwise being made. That is a business decision and should be treated as such, not on the basis of Socialist or other dogma irrespective of the realities.
  Mr. Corbyn: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's dislike of anyone having to pay higher rates in London. To be fair to the GLC and others he should perhaps give the Government some credit for increasing rates in London by taking £500 million away from London's local authorities in rate support and block grant. It would be much fairer if he approached the matter in an even-handed way.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would do it. His nose is hardly above the mud. Every time he speaks he sinks lower. We are now talking about the Government cutting the rate support grant. May I have your indulgence for a second, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I would have some difficulty replying to that intervention within the terms of the new clause that we are discussing?
  The rate support grant has to be cut because of gross overspending in many Labour-controlled councils, which was destroying whole areas of this great city of ours. Businesses can no longer afford to operate here and the life style of people who live here has been destroyed because they can no longer afford the rates which subsidise the unbelievable collection of people whom the GLC has decided to subsidise with ratepayers' money. There is the association of lesbian women in Haringey—or whatever it is. That is an incredible burden on taxpayers—not the hon. Gentleman any more than anybody else.
  Mr. Corbyn: I pay my rates.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: So do I. It is not coming from me or the hon. Gentleman any more than anybody else.

  1151
  I pay rates in and outside Greater London, so I have a perfectly good balance of experience, as does the hon. Gentleman. The burden is being spread across the country, particularly Greater London, and that is completely inexcusable. If they were asked, I am sure that 99 per cent. of Londoners would say that they did not want to subsidise lesbian groups.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have perhaps had enough of lesbian ladies for the moment and should return to the new clause.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was led astray by the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary logic.
  The new clause is largely in response to the demands of Labour Members. It is a useful addition, because, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to make his annual report on London Regional Transport, it will help us all to have an annual plan prepared by the LRT board which will enable us better to assess the progress or otherwise — if it goes the way of some nationalised industries—of that organisation. Therefore, I welcome the new clause and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being sufficiently big-hearted to introduce it, particularly as the suggestion did not come entirely from Conservative Members. I wish that that magnanimity and generous-heartedness could be shown by Labour Members and that we might have less carping criticism when everything that was requested is done. However, that is not to be the case.
  The Opposition have tabled two amendments to the new clause. One requires the consultation that I have briefly mentioned. It is difficult to articulate the astonishment that I feel that anybody could seriously suggest that when an annual plan is being considered within a three-year strategic overall plan, there can be consultation with all the people whom the Labour party would like to see the London Regional Transport committee consulting. There would not be a moment left to run the business or time to consider and make decisions that any board of any business ought to make if it were to spend 11½ months consulting the people whom Labour Members wish to see involved.
  Consultation under new clause 10 is neither relevant nor desirable and is part of the usual Socialist approach. The Labour party is interested only in maintaining the cosmetic front of democratic consultation and involvement when the reality is neither democratic nor true consultation and is nothing but a chaotic anarchy. As usual where Labour Members are concerned, the matter ends up with everybody taking no notice of what is said in consultation and plugging on under the GLC with their own particular political philosophy.
  Amendment (b) deals not with consultation but with something which is probably less desirable. The amendment requires such detail that there would be no scope for variation or for meeting the needs that might arise in the following year. I know that there is sound sense behind the front that the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Corbyn) likes to put on when making his eloquent and long-winded speeches. I am sure that he will acknowledge that it is highly undesirable that a committee should be pinned down to stating every decision that it will make within the next twelve months.
  We are trying to create a regional transport board which will run transport in London in the best interests of
  1152
  Londoners and in a way that is not too expensive for the taxpayer. There will be a fine balance to be struck between providing a public service and doing so in a cost-efficient and effective way. That cannot be done if we pin the board down annually to a series of detailed decisions, some of which should not be taken months in advance.
  I applaud my right hon. Friend for his new clause, which adds another excellent facet to a basically excellent Bill. I trust that the new clause will be warmly supported and the Opposition amendments defeated.
  6 pm
  Mr. Spearing: The speech by the hon. Member for Upminster, (Sir N. Bonsor) illustrates a paradox which is often found in the speeches of Conservative Members and is one of the reasons why they are ruining the country. It is clear that the hon. Member for Upminster does not often use what he calls "the transport".
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Wrong.
  Mr. Spearing: I am glad to hear that, but the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not be glad to hear that he does not consider that they should be consulted on transport plans.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Rubbish.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has just said so.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not believe that my constituents should not or will not be consulted at all. But I believe that they are much too sensible to wish to be consulted on every decision which LRT has to take in running the business in their interests.
  Mr. Spearing: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not run his business on those lines. My hon. Friend's amendment does not suggest that people should be consulted on every decision. However, for instance, if London Regional Transport decided that it did not make good business sense to run the District line to Upminster and that it would turn the trains round at Barking—I do not suggest that it will do so—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would want to have a word about that, and quite right too.
  The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly adrift about the difference between a public service and a legitimate private business. The private business offers commodities or services for sale, as it so wishes, and the customers may make themselves available. A public service has to make available services that may not be profitable. That is the basis of the Bill. There are to be Exchequer grants and ratepayers' subsidies to London Regional Transport. I suggest that two thirds of the bus routes, or more, lose money. Many of the railway routes lose money too, especially towards the end of the line. If they were run on business lines, they would cease to exist at all.
  However, the hon. Gentleman is right that it makes good business sense, as he would say, to have as many people as possible travelling at a reasonably low fare so that the greatest possible public service is provided and the maximum return is made on the capital. That is good business in the interests of the public. It is public business, not private business. The hon. Gentleman should keep that distinction clear. I believe that I am the first speaker in this debate who was not a member of the Committee club. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). He is a guest too. Not being

  1153
  on the Committee, I have only just realised that new clause 10 is a concession. I will now make some of the comments that occurred to me before I realised that that was so.
  The new clause is not particularly helpful. It does not go nearly far enough. The Minister of State described it as an annual business plan. That is all very well. However, the new clause refers to
  "guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the form and content of the plan".
  In other words, it will not be the plan of London Regional Transport; it will be the Secretary of State's plan. Those words would not appear at the end of the clause if centralised bureaucracy did not intend to exercise its powers. If that is no so, no doubt the Ministers will tell us why those words were included.
  My second point is fundamental. This annual business plan—the word "business" can be interpreted in widely differing ways, as I have just illustrated—will not be operating within the existing structure. There is now a Greater London development plan, which is the responsibility of the GLC. If the Government get their way, there will be no GLC and no Greater London development plan. The only dynamic organisation with influence upon planning in London will probably be London Regional Transport.
  For most people, it is the existence, reliability and cost of public transport that determines the accessibility of an area. Accessibility to some extent determines the activity and economic life of a zone or area. The public input by way of transport has the power to change land values. At the moment, land values are determined by planning consents. Without a strategic plan—if the Government get their way there will be planning only at borough level —it will not be easy to plan for London as a whole and to make sure that we get the best out of existing plant and equipment.
  That is bad enough within the present transport structure but the future structure of London Regional Transport will not necessarily—indeed, under the Bill it will not—be the same as the structure that we know today. There will be private enclaves. There will be what I referred to yesterday as the ice-cream concessions. Parts of the system will be let off to private business. There may be investment from the City. People may make arrangements with LRT to operate certain areas or zones. There will be a patchwork effect. There may be coordination, but the pattern will be different from that of today. There will be subsidiary undertakings. Someone might make an arrangement with London Regional Transport to run all the routes out of Bromley garage or Upminster garage—if there is one. The Bill encourages LRT to make such arrangements. The investor would make use of the plant and equipment.
  Under the Bill there will also be disposal of assets. It may be thought that some garages are not required, and they may be sold off. Buses or engineering facilities may be sold off or leased out on conditions which make it difficult to discern who is making a profit.
  More important, LRT might decide that certain routes should be closed or attenuated. The frequency of services might be reduced, or late night services stopped. Reducing the quality of transport in an area would have a profound
  1154
  effect upon land values, just as, if LRT decided to start a new route, an express service or late night service, land values in the affected area would rise.
  The history of public transport in London has been closely involved behind the scenes with the question of land values. The first tubes in London were built not with British but with American capital by Charles Tyson Yerkes, who was drummed out of Chicago for fiddling the tramways and real estate. The value of land in and around Chicago depended substantially on access by the new electric trams. He came to London and the London electric railway companies' lines — not the District and Metropolitan lines—were built with American capital. There is a story, which might be apocryphal but is still a good illustration, of a visitor being taken by an American manager out to Golders Green. They were building a brand new tube station and depot but all around them were green fields and trees. The visitor said, "Gee, why are you building a station here? There are no people." The answer was, "Come back in 10 years' time." We all know what happened to land values when the tubes and bus services were extended to the new suburbs in the 1930s.
  The history of the great suburban lines to the north of London is similar. I am afraid that I am not dissuaded that the Bill has something to do with land and land values. It will be only too easy for London Regional Transport, for ostensibly good reasons, to reduce services in one area and increase them in another, whereupon land values and prospects for development will be enhanced for people in the City who might not be directly connected with LRT or a party that is represented in the House. Nevertheless, changes could occur and some people might make profits which would not otherwise have been available.
  New clause 10 is relevant to those matters because, although it is not especially comprehensive, it requires some publication of such plans. I assume that the plans will also deal with fares. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that when he replies. The level of fares is not the only issue—are we to retain the excellent travel cards that we now have? Will they be encouraged so that we return to the proper business principles that the hon. Member for Upminster mentioned? Those proper business principles, the precepts of the London Passenger Transport Board set-up in 1933 and the GLC, aim to carry as many people as possible at the lowest possible cost. That is the only way in which public transport can serve London properly.
  I have my doubts about the Government's motives in the Bill and have made them clear. New clause 10 might go some way to being a safeguard but I am still uneasy because the Government are resisting our amendments. If their views were fully in line with what I believe to be the proper principles of running public transport and what the Minister calls open government and accountability to the users, the Government would have accepted the amendments. They have not; that is why I am anxious about their motives. I believe that they intend to provide private enterprise opportunities which I regard as opportunities for private profit at public expense.
  If I am wrong, I am sure that the Secretary of State will correct me, but the proof will be how London Regional Transport operates. We shall have to see. If and when we have debates on the matter in the House we, like the people of Upminster, Leyton and Newham, will be watching the performance of the new organisation. Most unhappily of all, those people will be writing to and visiting their

  1155
  Members of Parliament because we shall be the only safeguard between users and the new bureaucracy in Whitehall.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for what happened in Committee, when she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State allowed the three-year period for the main strategy statement to be implemented. There was an exciting and exhaustive debate on the matter and, as was so often the case, the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke about the plans. The Committee accepted that if the strategy statement could be improved, it would include this plan somewhere in the middle. I am glad that consultations have taken place and that wisdom has shone through. That is wholly consistent with the way in which the Bill has proceeded. I have enjoyed the debates on the Bill, especially because every clause was discussed. Wisdom has won over normal politics. I can remember the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East speaking at great length on new clause 10. He reminds me of the £1 coin which, on the side, says "Decus et tutamen" which means a thing of beauty and a store of value. It is wearing a bit thin now in my pocket.
  The Bill provides for consultation and I believe that the requirements on London Regional Transport to report are wholly satisfactory and in the interests of the people of London. Clause 6 deals with tendering requirements. Clause 23 deals with accounts and the auditors' report, which can be as long as the auditors make it. Clause 34 concerns contract carriage business and clause 33 concerns the annual report. All of those requirements must be put in the context of clause 31, which enables the Secretary of State to demand any statement from LRT if he thinks fit, especially if it requires its annual grant.
  New clause 10, by requiring a plan, will give just that little extra which the main strategy statement does not provide. There is no point in trying to shackle LRT about the content of the plan. Such a nationalised industry with a fully professional management cannot be committed to what its report should contain. The flexibility afforded by new clause 10 is exactly right.
  I hope that people who have anything to complain about with regard to LRT will get in touch with their Members of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested. I also hope that we shall keep the Secretary of State on his toes. Armed with the annual report, the three-year strategy statement and the annual plan, hon. Members and consumers will have plenty of details on the basis of which to question the Secretary of State. I welcome new clause 10 and thank my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Corbyn: New clause 10 begins:
  "It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport in each accounting year to prepare …a plan".
  It is a sad day when right hon. and hon. Members are told that such a new clause is a great advance, when we are doing away with an elected authority which can decide about the future of London Transport—we are able to put pressure op elected members of the GLC with regard to that policy—and replace it with the Secretary of State appearing before the House annually to announce his plan for London Regional Transport. The new level of
  1156
  consultation will amount to a debate on the Secretary of State's announcement the same day or a couple of days later, and a vote. I do not know about the Secretary of State, but I do not feel able to consult everyone in my constituency in a short time to ascertain all the details about the future of London Transport that I should pursue to forward in their interests.
  The concept of a plan for London Transport is being introduced, but more significant is what the Minister and the Secretary of State said earlier about LRT being run on "business lines". In a fascinating speech, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who is no longer here, told us that the best insurance for Londoners' travel in future is that it will be run on business lines.
  I would just ask the hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment, as we asked him to consider when he was speaking, whether running a transport system on business lines does not mean that the motives of profit, of disposal of assets and of reductions in service in order to balance the books would be the primary motives, rather than what I believe should be the primary motives of good planning for London and the provision of a good public transport system. These must be the basis of the way in which transport should be run in London.
  In only the last few days it has become apparent exactly how serious the cuts in London Transport could be if the Government were to gain control of it in the way that they hope. From a GLC level of £214 million in support, we could go down as low as £90 million in support, with all the cuts and closures and the loss of millions of bus miles that would result.
  Mr. Maples: Would the hon. Gentleman say on what evidence he bases his suggestion that the Government would do that?
  Mr. Corbyn: I base it on an assessment prepared, it is true, by GLC officers. I am not hiding the fact and I do not seek to hide it in arguments anywhere else. All I am pointing out is the level of service cuts implicit in the Government's taking control of London Transport and in the reduction of its grant from the level at which the GLC wished to pay it, which allowed for expansion of services, to what the Government envisage, which will result in very high fares, a vastly reduced service or a combination of both.
  It has recently become apparent which tube lines, which bus routes and which stations would be at some risk. I ask the Minister to tell us this. It has become apparent that Arsenal tube station in my constituency would be faced with closure under the plan that the Government are seeking to impose on the people of London. There has immediately been local opposition to this and a number of letters have been sent to me and, no doubt, to the Minister and others, asking why Arsenal tube station is to be closed. It is a very inadequate system, when people who are defending a local tube station should have to have the matter raised in Parliament, when they ought to be able to raise it with the relevant local authority, in this case the GLC.
  When the Secretary of State answers the debate on this clause, could we be told how it is an advance for the people of London if, once a year, he will come here and announce the plan for London for the whole year? On the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, there would not even by any consultation during that year because

  1157
  these business experts, these smart city gents, would be so busy trying to balance books and ignoring the legitimate demands of pensioners' groups and of the majority of people in London who do not have a car that they would be merely slicing services apart.
  This is part of the process of making London unique in western Europe as the only capital without a transport system that is designed to be integrated, that links road planning with public transport planning and that tries to provide a service rather than running a public service as a business. It is impossible to do that without destroying London through building roads, implementing cuts in services and ruining the lives and livelihoods of many London Transport employees.
  Will the Minister also tell us how, in 1984 of all years, any of this clause can be considered remotely democratic?
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I am rather concerned about the views of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on the details that he wants to see in the clause. Common sense should tell him that, by its very nature, a plan will contain details of services and facilities and of the levels and structure of fares. By its very nature, such a plan must be supported by estimates because that is how future expenditure is displayed. To suggest that such details are necessary demonstrates on the part of the hon. Member a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of the nature of the plan itself.
  One thing that he did not seek to be displayed by the plan is the balance between farepayers, taxpayers and ratepayers. Opposition Members are always very concerned about farepayers. We rarely hear them talk about taxpayers and ratepayers and the burdens placed upon them. There must be a balance between the three, and it is very unfair of Opposition Members to concern themselves, as did the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) solely with the level of fares and the impact on the farepayers.
  There has always been a form of consultation —perhaps of dictation—between the GLC and the London Transport Executive, which in itself has led to a great deal of interference — by the Conservative-controlled GLC because it was dissatisfied with the financial aspects of many of the London Transport proposals, and by the Labour-controlled GLC because it never considers the financial aspects of anything under its authority, unless to ensure that money is spent and then only if it comes not from its own pocket.
  I support the clause. The amendments are wholly unnecessary. Consultation must always be considered, but not consultation of the kind that Opposition Members want.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) really is a most ungrateful wretch to speak in unkind terms about his former employer, the GLC.
  Mr. Dicks: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker. It is my current employer.
  Mr. Banks: The Government clause represents a concession to the loss of democratic control over London Transport currently exercised by the GLC. I want to emphasise how difficult it is to make transport plans
  1158
  without paying attention to a wider strategy that takes into account the needs and problems of a particular area. Many sources could be prayed in aid for that particular contention. I shall choose just one for the record this evening, a letter from the right hon. Member who is now Secretary of State for the Environment, written in 1977 and giving his evidence to the Marshall inquiry set up by Sir Horace Cutler, the then Conservative leader of the GLC, to look at the role of the GLC in London. The Secretary of State was at the time a member of the Opposition. He said:
  "I would be grateful if you would put this letter before Sir Frank Marshall … Local planning was often frustrated because we had to operate under a regional plan for which no authority was really suitable. There was a great need for proper strategic planning which existed only on paper."
  The right hon. Gentleman was talking about his battle against the then Ministry of Transport's proposal to take a lorry route through Highgate, a proposal that he was successful in defeating. He went on to say:
  "It was essential to bring strategic planning and transport under the same control. The lorry route episode showed the appalling dangers of allowing an authority with transport responsibilities power to override all environmental considerations."
  He went on to say:
  "I therefore believe we have got progressively to return to the concept that the GLC is a strategic authority."
  He continued:
  "The GLC should remain responsible for London Transport and its transport planning should be progressively integrated with its strategic land use planning."
  Now, of course, the Secretary of State for the Environment is turning the advice that he gave to the Marshall inquiry in 1977 on its head. His Government are putting forward legislation which refutes everything that he said in 1977. The right hon. Member who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment was right in 1977 and is now very wrong.
  Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman prays in aid the Marshall report, is he aware that the current leader of the GLC, in debate in the council on the Marshall report, quoted in an earlier debate in the House, said:
  "I feel a degree of regret that Marshall did not push on and say 'Abolish the GLC' because I think it would have been a major saving…I do not believe you need two tiers of local government and I very much regret that Horace Cutler has not been the really ruthless Tory he likes to project and come forward with the biggest axe of all, and axed the whole appalling show." —[Official Report, 24 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 1094.]
  Mr. Banks: I am not praying in aid the results of the Marshall inquiry. I am merely praying in aid the letter that was written by the present Secretary of State for the Environment. It is interesting that some of those who took part in the discussions over the future of the GLC in 1977 delivered a number of hostages to fortune.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Snape: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, rather courageously, that he thought there should be an elected body to which transport plans should be submitted. The events that took place earlier this afternoon show that that is the direction from which pressure will come. There is to be an elected education authority for inner London. Why can there not be an elected transport authority for

  1159
  London? I am sure that the Secretary of State will have to resist pressure for the introduction of such an authority, and it is possible that some of the pressure will come from his hon. Friends. The principle could be extended further to include an elected health body for London. The obvious result would be an overall elected body for London. I hope that the development of an elected ILEA will be the forerunner of an overall pattern of directly elected local government in London.
  As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, the only place in which hon. Members will be able to make any representations about the future operation of transport and its planning within the Greater London area will be this place. One or two Conservative Members seem positively to welcome that, including the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). The Secretary of State, who is known not to be one of the most tolerant of Ministers, will not he any too happy about being bombarded with questions from London Members who are demanding to know why a bus stop, for example, has or has not been moved in their constituencies.
  The right hon. Gentleman must remember that if the Bill is enacted as it stands, the Chamber will be the only place where such debates can take place. I am not so sure whether the right hon. Gentleman will feel qualified to answer such questions. I am sure that my personal opinion will not bother him very much, but I feel that the moving of a bus stop is the only issue which he is qualified adequately to answer. I doubt whether he will be any too tolerant if he receives a non-stop bombardment of questions of that sort from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has supported the amendments which the Opposition have tabled to the new clause. It is difficult to convince Conservative Members of the origin of the amendments. Amendments in the same terms were thought necessary when the House of Commons was considering the measure which became the 1983 Act. Indeed, Conservative Members voted for them on that occasion. Why have the amendments become intolerable less than a year after the 1983 measure became law? The logic of Conservative Members' thinking escapes me. If democratically elected authorities must live with the conditions outlined in the amendments, I see no reason why LRT should not do so.
  I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who, regrettably, is no longer in his place. He sometimes gives the impression that his personal time clock stopped at about 1912. That is understandable, because I know from my own interest in these matters that it was about 1912 when the chairman of the London, Brighton and South Coast railway was none other than Sir Nicholas Cosmo Bonsor. I hazard a guess that the hon. Gentleman is likely to be related to that gentleman. His relative, however close the hon. Gentleman might be to him, would have been proud of the speech that he delivered this afternoon. When the hon. Gentleman takes his annual holiday—no doubt it will be in the Hapsburg empire during the summer—I hope that he will take a copy of Hansard which contains a report of this debate.
  As the hon. Member for Upminster said, he is obsessed with "business reality". I am always impressed when Conservative Members talk about that. I confess that on some occasions they know more about such matters than
  1160
  Opposition Members. After all, their Government have bankrupted more businesses in the five years since 1979 than any Labour Government in the lifetime of any Member of this place. There is some justification for them to be so worried about "business reality", but it is a pity that that worry does not extend to the consumers of public transport in London, who will be denied any voice in transport matters unless the amendments are accepted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew the attention of the House to the likely difficulties that will ensue in securing any adequate debate in this place on London's transport. His plea was that the amendments should be accepted. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) had a few words to say about taxpayers and ratepayers. He accused Labour Members of showing no interest in the welfare of taxpayers and ratepayers. Like many other Members of this place, I am both a taxpayer and a ratepayer in the London area. I do not know whether that is a necessary declaration of interest. Labour Members are concerned about those who are unfortunate enough to have to use London's public transport once LRT comes into being. That has been the main thrust of the debate and that is the main thrust of the amendments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) correctly drew attention to the dramatic turnabout of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I think that that is the fourth U-turn in 24 hours. The Government appear to be having a couple of bad days. As for the Secretary of State, it could not happen to a nicer guy.
  The new clause, welcome though it is, does not even mention the present responsibilities of the GLC and the issues that caused the Secretary of State for the Environment to write his letter as long ago as 1977. Every Member of this place should know that there is a great interdependence between planning and the reality of operating a transport system in any city. The Minister of State shakes her head, but that is true in Liverpool and Merseyside generally, and it is true in every other capital city throughout the world. The only purpose of the amendments — they were extracted from a measure which the Government introduced less than a year ago — is to give London's citizens the same rights and benefits within their transport system as are enjoyed by the citizens of every other developing country.
  Mr. Ridley: The House was treated this afternoon to the rare and delightful spectacle of the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) colliding with each other as they sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They should co-ordinate and integrate their operations so that that does not happen again. Further, they should coordinate their point of view. Unfortunately, one of them was absent from the Chamber while the other was speaking. One said that the object behind the Bill was to push up property values for Tory speculators. The other hotly denied that and said that the Government had failed to connect the Bill with the need for land use planning. That gives me the cue to agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that land use planning is important in relation to London's transport.
  I remind the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Newham, North-West that it was said in Committee that the Government would

  1161
  accept amendments designed to co-ordinate transport activities with the strategic land use plan for London which is in existence at any time. I undertook to table such an amendment and I have not moved away from that undertaking. I fear that, due to legal difficulties, the amendment has not yet been drafted. However, it will be introduced into the Bill in another place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) brought us back to the central point by reminding us that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—and where is he?—said at the beginning of the Committee stage that we should seek to strike a balance between the interests of ratepayers and travellers. Three months later we have not heard a single mention by Labour Members of ratepayers. I must put that first in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), whose point of view I appreciate and understand, and whose work on the Select Committee on Transport was valuable. He gets his answer from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who said that transport policies in the past have been most annoyingly and maddeningly interrupted by lack of cash. This is the point. We are talking about £370 million-worth of public expenditure annually and one cannot remove from politics such a great sum.
  The Government, who are responsible for the economy and the proper distribution of resources, have seen the GLC wasting resources by profligate expenditure on all sorts of things, but particularly on London Transport. There is no other example of a nationalised industry, which this is, being run by an elected body with a political majority different from that of central Government. That is all right for matters such as education, but no one could say that education is a nationalised industry. A nationalised industry, which has to be run efficiently, should not be under two different political masters. In theory it seems to be a mistake, but even if it were acceptable in theory, in practice it has proved to be a mistake. The experiment of the GLC running London Transport has not been a success.
  Mr. Fry: If that is the case, why is it the Government's current policy to keep local involvement in the passenger transport executives when the metropolitan counties are abolished? There is a local government input to those bodies.
  Mr. Ridley: London is the capital; the PTEs are not in the capital. The House must await the Government's proposals on that matter. When my hon. Friend sees them, he will get the answer.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has been busy as usual hugging himself with self-congratulatory glee——
  Mr. Snape: Anticipatory glee.
  Mr. Ridley: I shall go quickly through the opportunities for accountability and consultation. Under clause 7 a strategic statement, which will be the subject of consultation, is to be published at least every three years; that is a fairly major measure of accountability. The annual ratepayers' levy will be debated in the House with my report and will be backed up by all the necessary information. Under clause 29, the details of the level of
  1162
  services and fares are to be given to the London Regional Transport passengers' committee and the local authorities and is to be the subject of consultation with them; an annual report of LRT and its accounts are to be laid before the House. Under the proposed clause an annual business plan is to be made public and is to be available for all to comment upon.
  The Opposition say that they want a second annual consultation process on the levels of services and fares; they want two consultations with the same bodies in one year. What does the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East think? Does he want to be able on Monday to consult under clause 29 and then on Tuesday to require the authority to produce a business plan which will need further consultation? Does he want a statutory obligation for consultation with the same body on two separate documents on the same subject? The Opposition must be absolutely mad.
  6.45 pm
  I repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that closures are being planned. The GLC told him that we would spend only £90 million on London Transport, so he worked out a list of closures. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East referred to "squalid and nasty" decisions to close stations which I would get someone else to take. All those matters would be subject to the long process of consultation which I have set out.
  I shall repeat what I said. There is no plan to close any tube station, stop any bus service or do any of the things that are constantly being alleged by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. He did not even hear my hon. Friend when she denied it at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. He walked in late in the day and repeated these allegations in which he knows there is no truth. It is high time he listened, instead of continually trying to spread alarm and despondency. He is the master of the people who have been described throughout the debate as those who live over the water; he is the king over the water, the old pretender who has been pretending that 34 bus services are to be withdrawn, 33 tube stations are to be closed, bus passes are to be ended and only £90 million is to be spent on LRT next year. All this is simply scare tactics designed to cause anxiety and confusion. There is no need for any of it. There is a need for the clause and I hope the House will agree that it should not be amended.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause accordingly read a Second time.
  Amendment (a) proposed: In line 3, leave out from `proposals' to end of line 4 and insert
  `for the next three years ("the relevant period") with respect to—

  (a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them, or by agreement with them, by other persons; and

  (b) the general level and structure of fares to be charged for those services, and the general level of charges to be made for those facilities, so far as they are to be charged, made or otherwise determined by London Regional Transport.'. —[Mr. Snape.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 260.

  Division No. 232]

  [6.50 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Ashton, Joe

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  1163

  Barnett, Guy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Benn, Tony

  Janner, Hon Greville

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

  John, Brynmor

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Blair, Anthony

  Kennedy, Charles

  Boyes, Roland

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Loyden, Edward

  Buchan, Norman

  McCartney, Hugh

  Caborn, Richard

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McWilliam, John

  Cartwright, John

  Madden, Max

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Marek, Dr John

  Clarke, Thomas

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clay, Robert

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Maxton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  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

  Crowther, Stan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dalyell, Tam

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Patchett, Terry

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Penhaligon, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Pike, Peter

  Dormand, Jack

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Douglas, Dick

  Randall, Stuart

  Dubs, Alfred

  Redmond, M.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Eadie, Alex

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Eastham, Ken

  Robertson, George

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

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Ellis, Raymond

  Rogers, Allan

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ryman, John

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Flannery, Martin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Foster, Derek

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Skinner, Dennis

  George, Bruce

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

  Gould, Bryan

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

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Snape, Peter

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hardy, Peter

  Stott, Roger

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Straw, Jack

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Tinn, James

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Torney, Tom

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wareing, Robert

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Weetch, Ken

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Welsh, Michael

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Winnick, David

  1164

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fox, Marcus

  Alexander, Richard

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Amess, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Ancram, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Galley, Roy

  Ashby, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Batiste, Spencer

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Beggs, Roy

  Gow, Ian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Greenway, Harry

  Benyon, William

  Gregory, Conal

  Berry, Sir Anthony

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Grist, Ian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Body, Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Harris, David

  Bright, Graham

  Harvey, Robert

  Brinton, Tim

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayward, Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Heddle, John

  Butcher, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hickmet, Richard

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hill, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hirst, Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Hooson, Tom

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Coombs, Simon

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Critchley, Julian

  Jackson, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Farr, John

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Favell, Anthony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim

  1165

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lightbown, David

  Price, Sir David

  Lilley, Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Raffan, Keith

  Lord, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Luce, Richard

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  McCrea, Rev William

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

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

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Rost, Peter

  Madel, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Maginnis, Ken

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Major, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Scott, Nicholas

  Malone, Gerald

  Shersby, Michael

  Maples, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Marlow, Antony

  Sims, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Speller, Tony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spencer, Derek

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Squire, Robin

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stokes, John

  Moate, Roger

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moore, John

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Tracey, Richard

  Needham, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Newton, Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, J.

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Normanton, Tom

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Norris, Steven

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Parris, Matthew

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Wheeler, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wood, Timothy

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Powley, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Sainsbury.] Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Ginns and Gutteridge, Leicester (Crematorium) Bill
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  7 pm
  Mr. John Farr: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
  I am anxious to proceed with the Bill, which I introduced in the House on 14 February 1983. After a fairly short debate, it received a Second Reading. A number of amendments will be discussed later. I intend to proceed as quickly as I can.
  I believe that both sides of the House would wish to be associated with one interesting factor. Mr. Arthur Metcalfe has been in the service of the House as clerk to the parliamentary agents Dyson Bell and Co. for 50 years. Mr. Metcalfe is part of Westminster's history, and I know that hon. Members wish to show the proper acknowledgement to him for his dedicated service to the House for more than half a lifetime.
  The Bill is almost unique. Following the Second Reading debate in February last year, the Bill went before a Select Committee for almost a record number of sittings for a Committee hearing in the post-war period. The Select Committee had about 25 sittings, considered well over 100 pieces of evidence and heard 13 different witnesses. The Committee recommended that the Bill be approved. It laid down certain stringent conditions, with which the House is acquainted, and I shall not bore hon. Members with the details. I ask the House to accept consideration of the Bill so that it can soon be put on the statute book.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: It might have been thought, from the speech of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), that the crematorium was to be placed in his constituency, but it is not. The proposal is to place the crematorium in my constituency so that the citizens of Leicester, West may have the benefits of the efforts of the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency contains more green fields and light minds than mine.
  It might have been thought also that a certain remarkable parliamentary emanation would have shown that the crematorium was in Conservative territory. If nothing else, that document has made much parliamentary history because of the extremely long consideration that the Bill received in Committee.
  The document purports to be a private Whip emanating from the hon. Member for Harborough and signed by the hon. Gentleman and people from the far Right, the hanging Centre and the reforming Left of the Conservative party. Those sections are apparently anxious that there should be a crematorium in a high street in my constituency.
  That disgraceful document has been signed by six Conservative Members of Parliament representing the county of Leicestershire. I am the only Labour Member of Parliament representing any part of that county. I presume that those hon. Members intended to show that this was a party matter. That is the first falsehood that brings the Bill before the House.
  I am pleased that the Bill is opposed not only by many of my hon. Friends but by many distinguished and vocal Conservative Members. This is a matter not of

  1167
  privatisation but of life or death. The nearest approach to privatisation in this debate is the privatisation by the hon. Member for Harborough of the whipping system. I suggest that we should recognise that this matter affects all of us, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal, because one day we shall all be concerned with the end, as we are now concerned with the middle, of our lives. We should all be anxious that cities preserve the decencies and normalities of life, even if we happen to represent a place as rural and lovely as that represented by the hon. Member for Harborough.
  I wonder whether the House knows the type of place in which the kindly hon. Member for Harborough and his Conservative Friends propose to place the crematorium —not in their constituencies, but in mine. Perhaps they have been encouraged to take this action because the site is next door to the office of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. Perhaps they believe that it would be a good idea to place a crematorium next door to the union which some of them have so bitterly opposed. I wonder whether those Conservative Members know also that in the same building from which the union operates are the offices of Creative Advertising (Leicester) Ltd. which, I understand, is against the proposal, Creative Photography (Leicester) Ltd., Studio 41 (Graphics) and TASS.
  I wonder whether Conservative Members know that in the building next door to where they so kindly wish to place a crematorium are the premises of Charnwood Technic Art Ltd., Hebron and Medlock (Leicester) Ltd., industrial consultants, SAGG Beauty and Good Grooming, which undoubtedly will greatly benefit from having a crematorium next door, and John Biggs, Graphics. Across the road, in case anybody wants to take a dip, is the St. Margaret's swimming baths. I am sure that all the people who work and swim there are deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough for wanting to place the crematorium opposite the main recreational facility in that part of my constituency.
  Already, as people come to the baths to swim, they can observe the occasional hearse. We shall deal later—although I hope we shall not reach that stage—with amendments relating to the lack of parking and other facilities.
  It is notable that. despite all the unused space in the benighted area of Harborough, the hon. Gentleman — understandably, he is departing from the Chamber—wishes to place the crematorium in my constituency. I invite him to wait until he hears what the bishop has to say, because the area includes not only swimming baths, but also churches.
  The hon. Member for Harborough—I say this in all seriousness — has seen fit to make one of the most disgraceful personal attacks upon a bishop or anyone else that I have ever known. In my happy constituency the bishop and I have disagreed with each other politically, but we have always got on perfectly well personally.
  The hon. Gentleman, who is now leaving the Chamber again, might like to bear in mind that the Bill is not just improper and wrong because it will affect those who use places of work, swimming baths and churches, but also because it was brought in by false pretences.
  Evidence was given to the Committee that there was a place available for the scattering of ashes in a nearby churchyard, when that was not true. The bishop has made it abundantly clear that neither he nor anyone else of
  1168
  authority ever gave consent to acquire that churchyard to the hon. Gentleman or any of his acolytes, from other parts of Leicester—not my constituency—who want to put the crematorium in my patch, and who are sitting there wondering who is going to be cremated after being hanged.
  I wish to refer the House to the correspondence that has passed between the Bishops of Gloucester and of Leicester and the hon. Gentleman, the like of which I hope never to see again, and the like of which has never before been put before the House, and which I deeply regret. It is possible to disagree with ideas but still to preserve the decencies. Perhaps that was not possible for the hon. Gentleman, in view of what has been placed before the Committee about circumstances in which it was right for Messers Ginns and Gutteridge to have their crematorium in the high street in my constituency — that, although there was nowhere to scatter ashes nearby, there was a nearby available chuchyard which would be pleased to accommodate Messers Ginns and Gutteridge. It was not so. It was untrue.
  As it was untrue, what was left to the hon. Gentleman other than to attack the bishop personally and to suggest that if he spent more time in his diocese instead of abroad he might know more of what was going on? It is a personal attack which I am sure the bishop's parishioners and the people of Leicester, West will note with scorn. No doubt the hon. Member's constituents will regret it; there is no need to attack the bishop because one disagrees with him.
  Mr. Derek Spencer: If the case against the crematorium being located in the place where it is asked to be located is so overwhelming, will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the city council gave it planning consent?
  Mr. Janner: Yes, when the application first came before the city council, it made a mistake of the worst kind —[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh. Their mistake is now in thinking that the House will be fooled tonight into passing the Bill, in thinking that the bishop would sit tight and take insults, and that my constituents would sit back and accept the mistake made by the council and others, a mistake whch the council has fought hard to rectify ever since, and which I believe the House will help to rectify tonight.
  Mr. Farr: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way and urge him not to become overexcited about this matter, because he has probably forgotten, although I have not, that when I introduced the Bill in February last year I asked him whether he had any views on it. I know that he had another important engagement elsewhere that evening, but he will accept that at that time he had no views for or against the Bill. The fact that he has suddenly changed his position is surely worthy of some explanation to the House.
  Mr. Janner: The explanation is clear. I was shown to be wrong, too. I have since received the most fervent representations from people who live and work nearby, from the city council, which recognised its error, from the Bishop of Leicester and from my constituents. The constituents of the hon. Member for Harborough and those who support him are not affected. This is not a Conservative against Labour matter; it is not a matter of

  1169
  those who are believers and those who are not, churchmen and non-churchmen; it is not a matter for sectarian consideration and certainly not one for personal abuse.
  I shall now read the correspondence which the hon. Gentleman succeeded in delaying for a few moments. The letter is dated 26 March. It is to Gloucestershire Members of Parliament from the Bishop of Gloucester. It states:
  "If I am not too late, I hope I might just catch your eye and ear over a private Bill which will enable Funeral Directors, Ginns and Gutteridge in Leicester, to build their own crematorium.
  Although there has been no discussion about this amongst the Bishops, I am bound to say the prospect of privately owned and operated cremators on the premises of local funeral directors does cause me a good deal of anxiety.
  I understand it is being argued that such a development would be of particular benefit to the adherents of non-Christian faiths, particularly Hindu, and this would not be an aspect of the matter which would be prominent in Gloucestershire. I am not competent, in any case, to deal with it, but I do believe that for most Christian families the spaciousness and dignity which are almost always provided by the crematoria we now have, away from the city centres, is a valuable part of our customary way of doing things, and one which I should be reluctant to see disappear.
  I realise that there is a philosophical argument about freedom for funeral directors to become more competitive and to be able to show initiative in their business, but I believe there is another which draws our attention to many aspects of life at the moment which tend to cheapen and devalue human life. Against this background, the way we deal with death and bereavement is an important pointer to the value we place upon life itself, and if we allow or encourage developments which would appear to downgrade the rites and ceremonies attached to funerals, I think we might be taking a step in a quite wrong direction.
  Obviously if local funeral directors are allowed to install small cremation machines on their own premises, they will try to exert whatever pressure they can upon the churches to license those same premises for use as chapels, so that the whole funeral service can take place there. It is, of course, a hypothetical situation, but I feel bound to say I should be very reluctant to give licences for Church of England funerals to take place under such circumstances for the reasons I have glanced at above.
  I am rather hoping, therefore, that if you are in the House when the Ginns and Gutteridge Bill comes along, you will examine it very critically, and if it comes to us in the Lords, I shall at the moment be disposed to vote against it, unless something I have not yet come across emerges during the debate.
  Forgive me for adding to your postbag."
  The correspondence continues with a letter from the Bishop of Leicester to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). I shall not read it, but the bishop says that he is not opposed to private crematoria but he opposes this plan because it would give private crematoria a bad name. He refers to the objections raised by the Cremation Society and the Federation of British Cremation Authorities, which have not been answered by Ginns and Gutteridge.
  I may be wrong, but I have searched through the evidence given to the Committee and some of the Committee minutes and I have not found any reference to opposition to this proposal from the Church, the Bishops of Gloucester or Leicester, or anyone else. I believe that the House should not consider the Bill because, for all the time that was given to it in Committee, no time was given to the consideration of the views which have just been put forward by and on behalf of the Church and the bishops involved.
  I also have a letter which was addressed to all Leicester Members of Parliament. At the bottom it says, "Except Greville Janner." I do not suppose that that was for any
  1170
  sectarian reason, but probably because the bishop knew that I was on the side that we share, in righteousness. It reads:
  "I was only recently informed about this private crematorium bill for Leicester, or I would have written to you earlier asking you to oppose it when it comes before Parliament."
  By the way, those are hon. Members for all the Leicester seats besides mine who are opposing the Bill.
  The letter is dated 28 March 1984 and continues:
  "You probably know that I am opposed to the bill. So are the bishops who have mentioned it to me, the Cremation Society and the Federation of British Cremation Authorities."
  The society and the federation are fiercely proud private enterprise organisations.
  "The Cremation Society has adequately outlined the objections to the proposed crematorium, and Ginns and Gutteridge have failed to reply satisfactorily to those objections.
  I am not opposed to privatisation; and I deeply regret that this issue may have become political because privatisation is involved … I am alarmed at the precedents that it would set for bad privatisation with poor standards. It would be a first step to the widespread installation of corpse disposal units and inevitably carry all the unsavoury connotations of burning bodies in the basement."
  What a beautiful and accurate term that is.
  Somebody said to me the other day that if Ginns and Gutteridge gets its way there will be bodies burning in basements in every high street in the country, preferably those with Labour MPs in them. The letter continues:
  "The premises proposed are on a cramped site in the centre of Leicester City,"—
  I shall return to that—
  "in a place thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose of cremation."
  Is it not odd that Members of Parliament representing places other than that place in my part of the centre of Leicester City, which is thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose of cremation, wish to place a crematorium smack on a high street in my constituency?
  "I gather that Ginns and Gutteridge have suggested"—
  this is where we come to the essence of the matter, and I advise the hon. Member for Harborough to listen, because this is how the bishop replied, in the way that he saw fit—
  " that they might purchase All Saints Church as a garden of remembrance."
  That church is not next door, but is within walking or carrying distance.
  "They have not consulted me on this possibility."
  Can one imagine the company suggesting that it will buy a churchyard, yet not bothering to ask the bishop? Perhaps it does not know his address.
  The bishop said:
  "I would not be prepared to allow it."
  What clearer statement of intention could there be?
  Mr. David Ashby: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Janner: Oh, another one.
  Mr. Ashby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he telling us about the bishop who suddenly decided a year later that he had not heard about the Bill? Is that the man who has a bishopric in the same city as the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency?
  Mr. Janner: That is a lovely question coming from an hon. Member who once asked in the House whether it was true that miners had cars.
  All Saints' church is some distance from premises of Ginns and Gutteridge, across a street bearing heavy traffic. If the hon. Member wishes to intervene again, I challenge him to do so from Ashby—I am sorry, that is his name

  1171
  not that of the constituency which he represents, which, by the way, is many miles from the place where he wishes to place a crematorium. However, I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so. He does not answer —very wise.
  Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, (Mr. Janner) is continually on the move. At one moment he is half way down the Bench and at the next he is on another Bench. I suggest to you that it is a requirement of the House to speak from a more or less static position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I was not aware of that. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not perambulate.
  Mr. Harry Cowans: If it were not for the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would not move at all.
  Mr. Janner: I thought that the hon. Member for Harborough was moving the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious debate and I thought that the idea was that we should not play to the Gallery.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Chair to decide whether an hon. Member is in order.
  Mr. Janner: When the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has been in the House a little longer he will learn that the right way to oppose an hon. Member is to do so courteously, and not to follow the example of the hon. Member for Harborough in personal attack. The hon. Gentleman may also learn that when he sees fit to add his name to a Private Whip he must expect attack. If he does not like being made fun of, he should leave the Chamber. It is a free House.
  After all these interruptions, I wish to end by reading the letter from the Bishop of Leicester that was disliked so much. I am not in the least surprised that some Leicestershire Conservative Members dislike it. I knew that they would interrupt me as I read it, because they have no answer besides personal abuse. The bishop said:
  "I gather that Ginns and Gutteridge has suggested that they might purchase All Saints Church as a garden of remembrance. They have not consulted me on this possibility. I would not be prepared to allow it. All Saints Church is in fact some distance from their premises across a street bearing heavy traffic."
  In other words, the bishop says that even if he were prepared to allow the crematorium to be established, someone would have to carry the urns or caskets —presumably with ashes in them, because they have to be scattered—across one of the busiest and most dangerous streets in Leicester. It is a street which I suspect the hon. Member for Harborough would not know, because he has probably never visited that street, otherwise he would not have had the gall to put his name to the Bill.
  The bishop continued:
  "I have found no indication that the proposed new crematorium would offer a particularly desirable service to those of non-christian faiths.
  I hope you will be prepared to oppose this Bill."
  The hon. Member for Harborough has a copy of his letter too. Perhaps he wishes to read it to the House. As he does not, I shall do so. It said:
  "Thank you for your letter of the 28th March. I was indeed surprised to learn that you have just been made aware of the
  1172
  existence of this Bill. This Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons in April 1983, when it was widely publicised. Additionally, Mr. Paul Ginns at your suggestion, explained the purpose of the proposed Crematorium to Arch Deacon Silk"——
  Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention and that of the House to the fact that all the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech has consisted of so far is a series of letters. They may be relevant to his case, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for more than 20 minutes and he has hardly said a word of his own. Surely he can just say what he thinks about the Bill and sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). He is in order at the moment.
  Mr. Janner: I am delighted to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Every word I have said, including the words that the hon. Member for Harborough would prefer me not to read out, is strictly relevant. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman interrupts me. No doubt he deeply regrets having written the letter. He did not refer to it in his speech, as he could have done. If he wishes me to give way again I shall always be pleased to do so, returning courtesy for courtesy—in a manner of speaking.
  The letter to the bishop from the hon. Member for Harborough continues:
  "You do suggest that Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge have failed to reply satisfactorily to various objections which have been raised. The House of Commons Committee, however, as you may be aware, carefully considered the proposals and declared themselves as satisfied in their recent report; you refer to the site as being unsuitable as in the centre of the city, and yet the City Council has given planning permission"——
  that is nicely misleading; "gave" would be better—
  "and the City of London Crematorium operates its cremators from a basement quite satisfactorily there".
  I am not sure where that is. It is certainly not in my constituency, or in that of the hon. Gentleman. The letter continues:
  "Mr. Ginns, because of an ancient family link with All Saints Church, would have liked to have had a chance of purchasing it as a garden of remembrance, if only to have preserved it for the Christian faith; they have, I understand, now been able to make suitable arrangements elsewhere."
  I should be very interested to know where those arrangements are being made. We have yet to be told of any place that can meet the dignity of ordinary people who wish to scatter the ashes of their beloved after they have been cremated. It is normal courtesy, whatever the faith — whether Christian, Hindu or among those Jewish people who cremate—and normal practice, that people go outside to scatter the ashes, perhaps to plant a tree or a rose bush, or to put up a plaque. They go somewhere nearby to which they can return.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I hope that he will not sigh about it, as I am on his side.
  The Select Committee report said:
  "The first amendments required by the Committee were to the effect that no cremation operation is to be carried out before a garden of rememberance, that is a place for strewing of ashes, has been acquired by Ginns and Gutteridge. This shall be either All Saints Churchyard in High Cross Street or another area approved by the local authority."
  I understand that Ginns and Gutteridge made that proposal to the Committee before consulting the Bishop of Leicester and that the bishop then wrote the letter, of which I have a copy, saying:

  1173
  "I gather that Ginns & Gutteridge have suggested that they might purchase All Saints Church as a garden of rememberance. They have not consulted me on this possibility. I would not be prepared to allow it."
  Is it not quite extraordinary and entirely unsatisfactory in every respect to bring business before Parliament in that fashion?
  Mr. Janner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who on this occasion is indeed on our side. That is the situation to which I referred when I said that the Bill had been brought in under false pretences, first, because the bishop had not been consulted and secondly, because it was put forward on the basis that the strewing of ashes would be either at All Saints in Highcross street, which is not far away — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) objected earlier to my moving around, but he has now moved to another Bench altogether. He cannot keep still for 10 seconds. One never knows whether he is interrupting or just moving around, planting himself in the fields of Westminster.
  The report states:
  "If there is a disagreement about the suitability of the area, there shall be arbitration by an agreed arbitrator".
  How can an agreed arbitrator arbitrate about something that does not exist? That does not happen even in industrial relations.
  The House has been misled—entirely unwillingly and unwittingly, I am sure—into believing that the bishop had been approached, that there would be a churchyard nearby and a place to strew the ashes, and that if there was more than one place there would be arbitration. In the circumstances that I have described, it was clearly wrong for the Bill to be introduced at all.
  The hon. Member for Harborough makes an important point in his letter, but again it is entirely incorrect. He says:
  "In conclusion, I would like to say that it has been my experience that Hindus like to have a hand on the casket"—
  that is correct—
  "because the Gilroes Crematorium uses a hot cremator this is not possible there."
  That cemetery is also in my constituency, but far away up the road and surrounded by green. The letter continues:
  "The Ginns & Gutteridge cremator will start up from cold."
  So far, so good. That is all correct, but the hon. Gentleman omits the extraordinary fact that, as I understand it, at the Ginns and Gutteridge cremator the coffin containing the corpse is to be hoisted up on high before cremation. How anyone can keep a hand on the coffin in those circumstances without going up beside it is impossible to imagine.
  I have had no representations from any person of the Hindu faith or any other faith, within or outside my constituency, asking me to support the Bill and to abandon my opposition to it. Those who support the Bill are all well outside my constituency in beautiful areas of the country. I shall not name constituencies, but hon. Members who wish to plant a crematorium in the middle of Leicester come from areas well away from there.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, as I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend referred to religions other than Christianity. I have not seen the premises, but is my hon. and learned Friend
  1174
  suggesting that it is not possible for a person, perhaps the eldest son, to be touching the coffin on its journey from the chapel to the cremator?
  Mr. Janner: I am sorry. My hon. Friend has misunderstood. It is possible for someone to accompany the coffin to the crematorium but it is not possible to keep a hand on the coffin as it enters the burning area. With a hot cremator, it is not possible to keep a hand on the coffin until it actually disappears into what will be the flames, whereas in a cremator that starts from cold it is possible. Nevertheless, one cannot keep a hand on a cold coffin if it is out of reach of one's arm. I believe that such acrobatic feats are not possible even in the more rural areas of Leicestershire.
  In a brief reply to me dated 3 April, the bishop makes the position abundantly clear:
  "The Cremation Society and the Federation of British Cremation Authorities have expressed opposition to the proposals. These proposals are not far from the provision of urban corpse disposal units which would de-humanize the care of both the dead and the bereaved."
  Yet that is what it is intended to impose on the citizens of Leicester, West without consulting the bishop, against the wishes expressed by the Church and by the British Medical Association, and certainly against the wishes of all who live, work or have recreation near the premises in question. The bishop continues:
  "I am sad that the company never approached me to find out the reaction of the diocese to their proposals and I am deeply disturbed at the way in which this Bill has become a matter of party policy rather than real concern for the people of Leicester and their needs."
  The hon. Member for Harborough suggested that the bishop was unaware of the problem because of his
  "extensive programme of foreign travel".
  The bishop carries out his duties in the diocese marvellously well and, like others, makes an occasional foray outside. I have never accused the hon. Member for Harborough of doing his job less well because he has recently been spending time in Syria, Iraq and other areas perhaps more dangerous and less salubrious than those visited by the bishop.
  Not surprisingly, the bishop replied with some disgust to what was certainly one of the most disgusting personal attacks that could be made on a bishop or anyone else. I was surprised at the behaviour of the hon. Member for Harborough, as we have served in the House together for many years and he has always treated me, as I hope that I have always treated him, with courtesy. That has been true since the first day when he invited me to sign a motion about the Leicester Tigers and assured me that he would not mislead me or the House. In this case, however, the hon. Gentleman as misled the House and I am very sorry. He has also made a personal attack on the bishop because he disagreed with his views. I am very sorry about that, too.
  The bishop stated:
  "I spend on average one night a month away from the diocese. Just because I happen to have met Mr. Farr in East Asia some time ago does not mean that I make a habit of visiting East Asia." Even if he did——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will relate to his remarks to the Bill and not to the bishop's foreign travel.
  Mr. Janner: It has been suggested that the bishop should have intervened earlier but did not do so because

  1175
  he was making an extensive tour of the far east and elsewhere. That personal attack was reported in the Leicester Mercury, under the headline "Church not consulted on funeral firm's plan." It has been alleged that the Church was consulted. This is entirely relevant as it was made clear in the Committee and in its report that the House was being asked to approve the plan on the basis that the Church not only had been consulted but would sell a churchyard for the disposal of the ashes. That was completely untrue. The bishop had not been consulted.
  Mr. Farr rose——
  Mr. Janner: I have really had enough of the hon. Member for Harborough. I have given way seven or eight times and there will soon be complaints that I am taking too long.
  Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I do not think that he read out my letter to the bishop as clearly as he should. I stated in that letter that, before the Bill was even considered, and certainly long before it was printed, Ginns and Gutteridge knew that the Church must be consulted and quite properly approached the diocese of Leicester. The diocese said that Archdeacon Silk and two rural deans would deal with the matter. They visited the offices of Ginns and Gutteridge, remaining there for five hours from 10 am until 3 pm, long before the Bill was printed. At the end of that time they expressed satisfaction with the proposed arrangements. As the bishop has suddenly become aware of the situation, Archdeacon Silk and the two rural deans have since been consulted and confirm that they are still perfectly satisfied with the proposed crematorium arrangements that Ginns and Gutteridge have in hand. I hope that that clears the matter up. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for giving way', because I thought he would wish me to put the record straight in the interests of accuracy.
  Mr. Janner: It would have put the record straight, but I spoke to the bishop this evening, and he has authorised me to say that neither he nor anyone else in a position of authority gave consent. The fact that people were taken to lunch at Ginns and Gutteridge, shown around and were mainly satisfied with what they saw of how the business was run—no doubt they were also satisfied with the lunch—is in no way approval by the diocese. Nor is it in any possible way an agreement to sell, dispose of or allow the use of a churchyard. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
  The hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to apologise to the bishop, as he could have done, for what he said. If he wishes to apologise now to the House, and through it to the bishop, I shall gladly give way to him again.
  The hon. Gentleman does not wish to withdraw or apologise. In the face of that, there is then no way in which the House can decently continue discussion of the Bill.
  The Bill is designed to place a crematorium——
  Mr. Spencer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Janner: No. If the hon. and learned Gentleman represented the seat in which this crematorium is to be placed, I would give way. Had he represented the seat in which the crematorium is to be placed, I would not have dreamed of signing a private Whip about his constituency without having had the courtesy to speak to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not speak to me, and put his
  1176
  name to the private Whip. I have already given way to him. Unfortunately, the act of not speaking to people before quoting them is apparently infectious —an infection emerging from Harborough.
  It is a travesty that there should be an intention to place this crematorium in the high street. I have with me a photograph of the site of the crematorium which any hon. Member is welcome to see. Yesterday, I went along to see whether any mitigating factor could decently or reasonably allow the crematorium to be placed on this site. I suppose it is arguable that there are empty premises either next to or near this crematorium. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) nods his head in agreement. I can only guarantee the permanent emptying of all the premises nearby. If that is his object, he should also speak to me before signing a private Whip relating to premises in the next-door constituency. That is a normal courtesy in this House, but it was not followed in these extraordinary circumstances.
  I do not take this personally, because the hon. and learned Member was probably unaware of that convention. That said, this is my constituency, not his. It can be seen from the photograph that there is not one lane of traffic but, believe it or not, about eight, as well as a tunnel running into one of the busiest parts of the city. Even were there to be an available churchyard, which there is not, it is across that road that the bereaved are expected to dodge between cars or, perhaps, to use the pedestrian crossing, 100 yards away outside the AUEW building.
  I doubt whether those hon. Members who support the Bill have bothered to look at the plan. Had they done so, they would see that the crematorium has no parking facilities. I gather that if we ever reach the appropriate stage, which I hope we shall not, an amendment will be tabled, but at present there is nowhere for vehicles to park. I do not know where an increasing flow of mourners coming to this excellent undertaking are expected to park their vehicles.
  It is obvious that more people will use this facility. That is the object of the exercise. It is a perfectly proper way for businesses to try to expand. It would have been proper had the matter been put to the House properly, which it has not. It would have been proper had those who were allegedly approached been approached. It would have been proper had those living round about been consulted. They were not. It would have been proper had the hon. Member concerned been consulted before other hon. Members signed their names to a so-called private Whip stating:
  "Your attendance at 7 pm until the business is concluded is urgently requested".
  It might have been proper had the BMA, which is concerned with medical ethics, been in favour. It is not. It might also have been proper had the crematorium authorities wanted it. They do not.
  I have tried to find out who wants this crematorium, and I cannot. Apart from hon. Members who represent constituencies miles away and the business people who wish to expand their business, I have found no one else who wants it. I have asked the AUEW and TASS. I have asked people who swim in St. Margaret's baths whether they would prefer to have a crematorium opposite. I have not found one person who wants it. I have asked estate agents whether it would make it easier to let property. No one wants it, except the hon. Member for Harborough and his colleagues. I cannot understand why.

  1177
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thought that the bishop wanted it—he did not. Perhaps he thought the diocese wanted it — it does not. Certainly the people of my constituency do not want it. When the citizens of Leicester, West want something, they do not have the least hesitation in telling me. Generations of Janners have received representations from hundreds of thousands of Leicester, West citizens, but no one apparently wants this.
  In due course we shall no doubt hear from someone — we did not hear it from the hon. Member from Harborough—why it is desirable to have a crematorium in the high street in my constituency. We may perhaps hear from the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South that he would like it in his constituency. As a distinguished and learned Member, he will know that precedents are there to be followed. Once the precedent is established in my constituency, I serve notice that it will not be long before it gets to him.
  It may even get to other areas where people do not want it. Learned lawyers will then say, "There is a precedent. The House of Commons approved this after the longest sitting in the history of any Committee. The House of Commons approved it after speeches attacking it. The House of Commons approved it even though it was not wanted by the crematorium employees, the bishop, the people of the constituency, the local Member of Parliament or the BMA."
  They approved it because the hon. Member for Harborough wanted it. Therefore it is a precedent and, of course, one that should be followed. I wish that I could find a place in Harborough, worthy of the name of city, capable of implanting——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must bring the hon. and learned Gentleman back to the content of the Bill. I would remind him that this is not a Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Janner: As you please, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely pointing to the realities of life.
  The traffic situation in this area is already disastrous. There is one of the heaviest flows in the county of Leicester. It flows at speed; it is controlled by lights; it is controlled by a tunnel which is immediately opposite the crematorium. There is no adequate parking and there is certainly no reason why the precedents of centuries should be overruled in order to allow the site to be used as a crematorium.
  There are houses nearby—not many, but there are, I believe, some 22 homes within a few hundred yards. And certainly I know of no evidence from any persons dwelling in any of those houses that they would like to have a crematorium—if only so that their last journey may be a shorter one than travelling up the Groby road, past the hospital, to Gilroes cemetery, which is available and is, as far as I know, well run and adequate. Behind, there is a garage, and that is about all, and near to that there is a Roman town.
  The placing of this crematorium in that position could not possibly be warranted. The only slightly ironic reason, I suppose, is that two streets away is a street known as Holy Bones, but even that is opposite a fabrics factory where people work. Across the road, during the hours in which this crematorium would operate, there is a printing works.
  Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to go on like this about a matter which has been considered by the city council and by the planning authority, which considered all these matters very carefully and gave the proposal their consent? For the hon. and learned Gentleman to go on detailing all the surrounding properties is, I suggest, a great waste of time and quite unnecessary as it already has planning approval from the Leicester authority, as he well knows.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The length of a speech is not a matter for the Chair. As long as the hon. and learned Member is in order and referring to the Bill, he can go on speaking.
  Mr. Janner: If the hon. Member for Harborough were to interrupt me less often, I might finish rather sooner. However, I would still be prepared to give way to him if he wished to apologise to the Bishop of Leicester for his attack. Subject to that, perhaps he will hear me out and we shall get through more swiftly. All that he wants is for this, Bill to pass. I hope I have made it plain that all I want is for the Bill to be rejected, and I am using a wholly proper parliamentary method in order to see that it is, I hope, rejected—because it is not, as has been made out in this private and extraordinary Whip, a Conservative party matter, but a matter, as the bishop has said, of concern to all citizens interested in the decencies of life and of death.
  A statement was made on behalf of the promoters in support of consideration of the Bill. I have the statement and I have attached to it the Bill itself. The statement says:
  "The Company' s"—
  that is, Ginns and Gutteridge's—
  "premises are situated immediately upon Vaughan Way and are therefore affected by the 50 yards' limit under the said section 5. However, as the area constitutes the industrial and commercial centre of the city of Leicester, there are only 21 dwellings even within the 300 yards in respect of which notices were served…on 38 owners, lessees or occupiers, as prescribed by the Standing Orders. Moreover, none of those dwellings is within sight of the Company's premises.
  It must be relevant to this Bill that there are 21 dwellings and that there are 38 owners, lessees and occupiers, with their families, who live out of sight but within range of this place—this place which Ginns and Gutteridge itself says constitutes the industrial and commercial centre of the city of Leicester, which is not where a crematorium should be placed.
  I would oppose this Bill even if the crematorium were not in my constituency. I would oppose it just as heartily if it were in the constituency of the hon. Members for other parts of the city of Leicester who have seen fit to add their names, without consulting me, to this Whip.
  Mr. Soames: Perhaps I could help the hon. and learned Gentleman with a possible solution to this problem. If Ginns and Gutteridge, which, I gather, represents that it will be able to buy this churchyard even though the bishop, apparently, is not in favour of it, could perhaps buy a field in Harborough and use that instead, local honour would be satisfied all round. How would the hon. and learned Gentleman feel about that?
  Mr. Janner: I would be agreeable to that. It could also be put in north-west Leicestershire. In fact, I think we could even have a whip round and find people to contribute

  1179
  the odd copper so as to place it in one of their constituencies and not in mine. I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. Ashby: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Leicestershire, North-West, and I must say straight away that I do not see anything objectionable about a garden of remembrance in north-west Leicestershire. It would be a great honour and I would be quite willing.
  Mr. Janner: The hon. Member's intervention completely seals this matter because he is talking about a garden of remembrance and he has not even noticed that there is no room for a garden of any kind where it is intended to put the crematorium in my constituency. It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman has not even read his brief on this occasion. Had he read it he would have known that the basis of the objection on this side is that there is no garden, for remembrance or for any other purpose. There is no field, no patch of green, not even a window box, within sight. If the hon. Member thinks that is funny, I do not. I think it is awful and a great shame, and that is what we are talking about here — the planting of a crematorium where there is no room to plant anything else, the putting of a crematorium for the disposal of human remains where the bereaved cannot walk out into a field, into a garden or into sunshine where they can sit quietly and reflect. They can walk out only on to one of the busiest streets in the midlands, with traffic flowing in both directions, where, alas, they and the casket may be knocked down, may be whisked away — [An HON.MEMBER: "More customers."] There would be no objection to a garden of remembrance in north-west Leicestershire and no objection to a garden of remembrance near Gilroes cemetery. The objection is to having a crematorium in an area where there is no garden of remembrance. If the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) would like to intervene again with any more helpful suggestions, I would be most pleased to give way.
  This matter is treated in the city of Leicester as one of very great consequence. Two parts of the city are represented by hon. Members who have seen fit to sign a motion saying that they would like the crematorium to be in the third part. The House may draw its own conclusions about that. From out of the country —yea, yea, from the bushes and the fields—have emerged hon. Members—some of them now listening, some moving around chatting — in order to suggest that in my constituency there should be planted a garden with no earth, no soil, no rose, no tree, no shade, no leaf; a garden where nobody can sit after a cremation and contemplate, as human beings all over the world do, and are entitled to do.
  Mr. Cowans: I rebuke my hon. and learned Friend, because it is not right that he should concern himself about hon. Gentlemen opposite who are sitting in discussion. What he does not know is that they have got their heads together to see whether they can find that field in Harborough. Perhaps he could consider whether, if they find the field, they could take the crematorium as well?
  Mr. Janner: With respect, I have enough problems dealing with Leicester, West. The hon. Member for Harborough will have many more problems dealing with Harborough after this effort than he has had, and I think that we should let him get on with it. He also has to deal
  1180
  with the bishop, to whom he has refused to apologise. A lot of people will be as disgusted as this House is, with the placing before this House of the suggestion, repeated tonight, that this Bill should be passed as having the consent of the diocese when it has no such consent. What is more, his hon. Friend says that he would have no objection to having in his constituency of Leicestershire, North-West a garden of remembrance.
  My case is clear. It is that it is right and proper that dignified, decent, humane and compassionate arrangements should be made for crematoria, but not in places where the establishment of one is opposed by the people who live in the area, by the BMA, by those who run crematoria in Britain, by the diocese and on the basis of there being a garden of remembrance when there is no green, no garden and no soil.
  It is certainly opposed on the basis that the garden of remembrance should be across one of the busiest roads in the county of Leicestershire, in a churchyard. It should certainly not be established in such a place when the Committee was deceived into passing it on the basis that the bishop and the diocese had agreed to the garden of remembrance being in the churchyard, even across a dangerous road with constant traffic, so that people might be knocked down. In other words, there is no place for a garden of remembrance.
  Mr. Patrick Ground: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the condition that the Committee suggested should be imposed on the planning application? Has he ever seen such a condition? Is he in the least comforted by the condition that
  "the equipment for the burning of human remains…shall operate so as not to create any smoke or smell"?
  Is he happy about the delay that would take place should anyone bring an enforcement action to enforce that condition?
  Mr. Soames: They would be underdone.
  Mr. Ground: Has he ever seen such a condition before?
  Mr. Soames: Medium rare.
  Mr. Janner: I wondered, when the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) began that intervention by referring to me as his hon. and learned Friend, what he intended to say, but it is clear that sanity and compassion are not confined to the Opposition Benches. This is not a party matter. I believe that the condition to which he refers is better in the Bill than out, so that if by some awful quirk of parliamentary fate this dreadful Bill becomes law, there would be some possibility of enforcement thereafter.
  The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am happy with that condition. My answer must be no, for two reasons. First, on powerful expert information that I have, it is not possible to operate a crematorium completely without smoke or smell. Secondly, I am unwilling for the experiment to see whether it would be possible to do it without smoke or smell to take place in my constituency. I should prefer it to take place in Harborough, in Leicestershire, North-West or in a field or garden, but certainly not smack in the centre of my constituency on one of the busiest streets in the whole of the midlands where the traffic flows by at the rate of thousands of vehicles an hour in a never-ending stream, against the

  1181
  wishes of the diocese, the bishop, the crematoria operators, the BMA, the local residents and all those who live, work and sleep in the vicinity.
  I have had the misfortune to see the cremating of people in various parts of the world. There is no happy way of dealing with the end. As General de Gaulle once remarked, life is a marvellous voyage and its end is shipwreck. He might have said that life is a marvellous voyage and that sometimes at the end the ship gets burned. Throughout the world, decent and compassionate people try, in their various ways, to see what can be done to ease the pain and burden.
  After all, the person who has died, whether he or she has gone to Heaven or elsewhere, has gone from the earth. It is those who remain on whom this crematorium is to be imposed. Those who remain will have to suffer from the imposition of this wholly unwanted "facility" to be planted in my constituency by people from outside who probably do not know the area and who even talk about the garden of remembrance when there is not a scrap of soil, not a tree, a leaf or a plant.
  This is a horrific, horrible, uncompassionate, ill-conceived and misrepresented Bill. Had it been placed before the Committee in a way that showed that the bishop and diocese were against it, which it was not; had it been placed before the Committee with a frank admission that they had not even been consulted, which they were not; and had the Committee been told that this patch of land, that this churchyard across the flow of traffic, would not be available, which it is not; I doubt whether even that Committee, after all its interminable sessions, could conceivably have placed the Bill before the House, even with the provision to which the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston drew attention.
  The Bill has all those defects. It would establish a crematorium in the wrong place, it is uncompassionate, it would be on a busy road and there would be no garden of remembrance.
  Mr. Soames: Some hon. Members may have received a briefing letter from Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge—I gather that it was sent out in the middle of February—in which it was clearly implied that permission for this churchyard had already been given. It was implicit in the statement that it would probably be the churchyard of All Saints. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to make the case that that was a complete misrepresentation of the facts in that there is no such formula available for that to happen, and that the Bill should fall on that ground alone.
  Mr. Janner: I happily adopt what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the Bill is not founded on that ground of failure alone. It is founded on all the others. I make no apology to the House for having taken due time to explain the feelings of my constituents and for expressing the views of the BMA, of the crematoria operators and, above all, of the people who live and work in the area. I make no apology for asking the House to consider with great care this bad Bill and roundly to reject it by whatever method is proper in the eyes of the Chair.
  8.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I shall not detain
  1182
  the House for long. As we have heard, the proposals in the Bill clearly arouse strong feelings on both sides. While the Government do not wish to take sides in the argument, it may be helpful, to clarify the Government's position, if I mention a few of the issues that have arisen.
  The House understands that Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge wish to install cremation equipment in their existing funeral director's premises in Leicester, and hon. Members will be aware that they need to promote a private Bill for that purpose only to overcome the restrictions in section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902, which prohibits the construction of crematoria within 50 yards of any public highway or, unless the owner and occupier agree, within 200 yards of any dwelling.
  There have been a number of occasions on which Parliament has agreed to relax the restrictions in the 1902 Act in particular cases, and in the light of those, the Government took the view that Parliament should decide whether the restrictions should be waived for the benefit of Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge.
  It would be invidious for the Government, on the basis of the information likely to be available to us, to conclude that a waiver would be appropriate in one such case but not in another. In the circumstances of this Bill, it was clear that the Committee on the Bill would have to consider all the evidence in detail.
  I recognise, however, that the Committee felt that it was inappropriate for parliamentary Committees to have to take on the role of "planning tribunals" — as it described them in its special report — and it recommended that urgent consideration should be given to the repeal of section 5 of the 1902 Act. As my hon. Friend who is now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy said when speaking for the Government on Second Reading, the siting restrictions in the 1902 Act are not necessarily the most modern way of dealing with these matters.
  We realise, however, that there are arguments for and against repeal of the 1902 restrictions. On the one hand, there is the view that nowadays one should be able to rely on the planning system to ensure that crematoria are judiciously sited. It was on that basis that the opportunity was taken, in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to rescind the requirement under section 1 of the Cremation Act 1952 to obtain my Department's approval of the site and plans of any proposed crematorium.
  That does not, of course, mean that my Department no longer has any kind of role here. If, for whatever reason, an application for planning permission were refused by the local planning authority concerned, and the applicant subsequently appealed, the case would then come to my Department for determination.
  On the other hand, one has to recognise that strong views are held against the idea of repealing the 1902 restrictions. There are, of course, a number of precedents in local Acts for partially waiving the restrictions, but approvals given under the 1952 Act for the siting of crematorium projects have generally been within the framework of these restrictions. There can be no doubt that the organisations making up what is called the "cremation movement" regard the section 5 restrictions as having set the tone for crematorium siting in this country, and thus having greatly helped to make the practice of cremation as widely acceptable to the public as it has now become.
  The Government will, as the Committee has recommended, consider repeal; but I emphasise that no

  1183
  decision will be taken without the cremation movement's case having been fully taken into account. Meanwhile, I take this opportunity of informing the House that we propose to bring crematorium projects within the classes of "bad neighbour" developments to which section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 applies. That means that applications for planning permission for such projects would have to be advertised, and any objections to them would have to be taken into account by local planning authorities in determining the applications and we are now having consultations.
  Mr. Jack Straw rose——
  Mr. Macfarlane: I am reluctant to give way, because I am not introducing this private Bill.
  Mr. Straw: It is true that the Minister is not introducing the Bill but the Government are bound to take a view, if only through inertia in letting the Bill come before the House in the way that they have.
  Is it appropriate to use the private Bill procedure to seek such a major departure from a public statute which has worked well for so many years?
  Mr. Macfarlane: Many issues have been raised and the Government took due note of discussions in Committee and the representations that were made. We are now having consultations.
  The Committee recommended that emissions from both existing and future crematoria should be more stringently controlled. First, my Department has little evidence that smoke and smell from crematoria have caused significant problems in recent years. A number of controls are applied to crematoria emissions. The grit and dust arrestment plant and the chimney heights are approved under the Clean Air Acts. There is an absolute prohibition — also in the Clean Air Acts—on the production of dark smoke. If a crematorium is in a smoke control area, it may not produce smoke at all. There is also the long-stop power available to local authorities under the Public Health Act 1936 to require emissions to be abated, provided that the emissions are adjudged to be a nuisance as defined in the Act.
  The control powers are really quite strong. However, I take note of what the Committee says about the need for tighter control. It took a lot of evidence and went into the matter most carefully. Those are important issues. I am also conscious that many crematorium furnaces are due for renewal with the next five to 10 years. I am pleased to say, therefore, that the Government propose to consider, with the manufacturing industry, the preparation of tighter technical specification for new furnaces.
  In addition, the House may recollect that in its response to the fifth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the Government announced that they would undertake a comprehensive review of air pollution control legislation. That review is under way, and will encompass the Clean Air Act powers to which I referred earlier. I believe that the House will accept that the Government's response to the Committee's recommendation demonstrates a proper recognition of the need for action and I am grateful for the points that it raised.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: I am not from Leicester or from the midlands, but the Bill has wider implications. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has made clear, if the Bill
  1184
  is approved tonight it will be accepted as a precedent for the rest of Britain. I represent an inner-city area and I find it incomprehensible that such a proposal should even be considered by the House of Commons in this way. It is even more remarkable that the Committee—I note that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), is present; perhaps we shall have the benefit of his advice—came to the conclusion that it did.
  Throughout this century, since cremation has become more desirable, one thing that stands out above all others is that generally crematoria operate in nice, green surroundings. Many people today prefer cremation to the old-fashioned type of burial because they feel that their loved ones will be resting in happier and more attractive surrounding than they otherwise would.
  Tonight it seems that the promoters of the Bill are attempting to put the clock back, not 50 years but more than a century. This is a thoroughly bad Bill and I hope that the House will reject it.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: It had not been my intention to join the debate at this stage, but it seems to have developed into a broad, almost Third Reading debate, so perhaps I should take the opportunity to make one or two points as the person who had the privilege—it became rather a strained privilege after 25 days—of having been Chairman of the Committee. That Committee was particularly onerous and those hon. Members who served on it undertook a considerable task and performed a great duty to the House of Commons.
  We are presented with a considerable difficulty because, having listened to the argument for 25 days, having heard both sides and having been into some of the points that have been raised in enormous detail, it is tempting to intervene and to take almost a partisan point on the issues that are given a broad brush treatment in a debate such as this.
  Mr. Janner: As the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that what the bishop said is correct? The Committee did not know that he and the diocese were opposed to the Bill and that the churchyard concerned would not be available.
  Mr. Moate: I shall come to that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman must present his case in his own way. I do not want to take a partisan attitude. Nevertheless, I support the conclusions to which the Committee came and would vote in support of the conclusions to which I and others came.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had read the minutes. Frankly, I began to doubt that he could have done. I began to doubt whether he knew all the facts that had been presented, in the light of the way that he dealt with the case today. Obviously, how he deals with that is his affair. I can understand the depth of his feelings and those of his constituents, but he did not do justice to the amount of consideration that had been given to the points that have been raised.
  We were presented with a great deal of evidence about the All Saints churchyard. We were given to understand —I have no reason to doubt it—that negotiations were under way with the church authorities on the possible purchase of that churchyard. I believe—I do not intend to check through 25 days of minutes—that even figures

  1185
  were mentioned for the price that was being negotiated. That it should be a garden of remembrance seemed to me to be a right, proper and reverent use of a religious site. To those of us who are concerned about what happens to redundant churches, that seems an attractive and sensible use.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has criticised other hon. Members for not listening, but he is not listening to me. If the bishop was not advised, that is a matter for the internal management of church affairs. I have no reason to doubt that proper and genuine negotiations took place. It was because we could foresee that imposing such a condition on the promoters would give the whip hand to the opponents that we added the alternative that if that site was not available, an alternative site should be found. The alternative site should be subject to approval by the planning authorities, and if those authorities did not give their approval, there should be scope for arbitration. We could not have been fairer than that.
  Mr. Janner: I apologise for having been seeking guidance while the hon. Member was speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that with 25 days of evidence it is not possible to remember everything, but I believe that my recollection is absolutely correct. There was discussion, and a price of £30,000 was mentioned. But the fact remains that neither the bishop nor the diocese was asked to give evidence to the Committee, nor was there any evidence that the bishop or the diocese had agreed or would agree to the sale. If that is correct, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to tell the House why the Committee saw fit to conclude its considerations without even asking the bishop, when it was going to base part of its decision on the unreal possibility of the churchyard being available.
  Mr. Moate: I shall resist the temptation to go through the many points raised in the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman may use his considerable and formidable court room techniques, but I am not going to answer in that way. The hon. and learned Gentleman is changing the subject and the point.
  The deliberations of the Committee were held over some five months, because of the intervention of the general election. After that time, the subject was very well known. I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who again is not listening, that if the church objected to the proposals about All Saints churchyard — All Saints churchyard was frequently mentioned during the proceedings — it is up to the church to explain why objections were not made while the Committee was sitting. At no time was it said that the churchyard was not available. Had that been said, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Committee would have taken the objections on board, because considerable importance was attached to the garden of remembrance.
  Mr. Soames: I know how carefully my hon. Friend investigated these matters. When, as Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend visited the site with the Committee to assess the matter that it was discussing—[Interruption]—was he able to see the impact that this will have on the garden of remembrance, if it is allowed to go ahead?
  Mr. Moate: The Committee unanimously decided not to visit the site. My hon. Friend has not had the privilege of serving on such a Committee, but he has many years of experience in this House. Before he starts to expostulate, he should remember that it is not the normal practice of Committees to visit sites under consideration. The Committees are asked to consider principles, not to act as a planning committee. It is therefore proper for counsel to promote the case of the petitioners or objectors in this House, where everything is on the record.
  We had a weight of evidence before us, including a vast array of photographs. We knew a great deal about Vaughan way. That is the name of the street. The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps referring to the high street, which is a name never used in the Committee. He ought to get it right, because the area is in his constituency. We knew the details very well indeed. I deny that the Committee was not familiar with all the arguments about the site.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: I accept that, with his experience, my hon. Friend is right about not visiting the site. However, although, because of custom and practice, they did not deem it worthwhile to visit the site, my hon. Friend tells us that the members of the Committee spent 25 days studying photographs, and that is just the same thing. Would it not have been better to visit the site and to see, for example, the enormous petrol tank at the rear of the building, which could easily blow up?
  Mr. Moate: All those concerned know the arguments for and against visits. My hon. Friend has seen the petrol tank——
  Mr. Soames: Only in photographs.
  Mr. Moate: Yet my hon. Friend is an expert on the subject. The members of the Committee did not agree about all the issues, but they all agreed that they should not visit the site. We were familiar with the petrol tanks, the petrol pumps, the parking places and the location of traffic lights. If we had not been, that would be a criticism not of the Committee but of the way in which the counsel on either side had presented their case.
  Mr. Rooker: I understand that the membership of the Committee changed as a result of the general election. The hon. Gentleman states that the Committee made a unanimous decision not to visit the site. Was that decision made before or after the election? If the membership of the Committee changed, how could all the members of the Committee have been familiar with all the details?
  Mr. Moate: Technically, it was a newly constituted Committee. With a new Parliament, it became a new Committee. There was a change, and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) then became the new member.
  Mr. Rooker: Wrong again.
  Mr. Moate: I apologise. It was the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) who joined the Committee. He diligently read all the previous proceedings.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: He did, but you did not.
  Mr. Moate: I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is shouting, but he contributes nothing to our debates.
  Mr. Skinner: Some members of the Committee may have been diligent, but the hon. Gentleman was not so diligent. He is not even sure who was serving on the Committee at any one time.
  Mr. Moate: That is a most valuable point.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly joined us after the election and studied its earlier proceedings most diligently. The newly constituted Committee decided not to visit the site. It is nonsense to suggest that the Committee was not as familiar with the site in question and the relevant facts as any Committee has ever been on a comparable matter—or even more familiar.
  I do not want to become involved in an argument about this point, but it has been suggested that the Committee was not thorough in its deliberations, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that we were deceived. I ought to put the record straight. The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong to suggest that we were deceived about the churchyard.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: What about the bishop?
  Mr. Moate: If the bishop was not privy to the negotiations entered into by the church, that is a criticism of the bishop, and bishop ought to apologise to us. [Interruption.] If the church had strong ojections, there was ample opportunity for those concerned to make representations to the Committee. It is a matter of record that they did not do so.
  Mr. Spencer: Is it not the case that the Bill was amended in Committee to take account of the point now made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? The matter was dealt with extensively in Committee, and the Bill has been amended as a result. It expressly provides that, in default of the churchyard being available, some other place can be adopted by agreement, and in default of agreement there is procedure for the selection of another appropriate place.
  Mr. Moate: As I have already said, that is exactly what we did. We all understood how worried people were about the garden of remembrance and we thought that the promoters had gone a long way to meet that worry.
  Mr. Janner rose——
  Mr. Moate: This must be the last time that I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Janner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Accepting, as I do not, that the alternative was included because the Committee was waiting to see what the bishop thought, when it could have asked, and accepting that the Committee would have preferred to have a garden of remembrance, can the hon. Gentleman show anywhere—as he did not go to the site perhaps he can do so from a map—where a garden of remembrance could be put within a reasonable walking distance?
  Mr. Moate: I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, who cannot resist the opportunity to make cheap cracks, that we went into great detail——
  Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is nothing wrong about asking an hon. Member to state the results of the Committee's inquiry to which he is referring when he has said that the Committee gave
  1188
  alternative methods—one of which was that it should be in a churchyard, and another in a garden of remembrance to be stated elsewhere—to have that referred to——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a point of information and not a point of order on which I can rule.
  Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One is entitled to ask for a withdrawal when that type of personal attack is made without the slightest foundation of fact, reality or understanding.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It must be a matter for the hon. Member concerned.
  Mr. Moate: It is not so much the substance of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says as the manner in which he says it. If he looks at the record he will see what I mean. I am surprised, because I have always had rather more respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman than that.
  Mr. Rooker: He is at it again.
  Mr. Moate: I said that the Church could have made representations but that it did not. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the British Medical Association, which also could have made representations but did not. There were many opportunities for it to do so, and had the petitioners against the Bill thought that there was a valid argument on the basis of the BMA's objection, I am sure that they would have brought objections to that effect.
  I should like to support a couple of points that we made in our special report. My hon. Friend the Minister has made a statement which I warmly welcome. I am extremely grateful that the Department and the Government have so clearly considered the recommendations, which are general and, in many ways, separate from this matter. I hope that something will flow from that. He said that there had not been widespread anxiety and complaints from the crematorium but the evidence which the Committee received suggested that nuisance caused by the existing crematorium was far more widespread than could leave us satisfied.
  The House should know that it was the witnesses of the Cremation Society of Great Britain Ltd. and The Federation of British Cremation Authorities who pointed out how widespread was the amount of smoke and the smell caused by crematoria. One of the witnesses gave a catalogue of visits that he had made and said how bad the problem was. There was other evidence which suggested that present practices fall far below the standard that the country is entitled to expect. That is why we urge that the controls be more strictly applied.
  The other crucial issue was whether the House should consider this issue. For all the important issues that concern us now, it is significant that we are only considering it because of a requirement in the 1902 Act that a crematorium should not be allowed within 50 yards of a highway or 200 yards of a house. Oddly enough, in London the requirement is that a residence should be no less than 100 yards away. I do not know why there should be such a difference in human sensitivities, but there is. It is almost by a legislative quirk that the matter came to the House—other bad neighbour developments would not.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that, in future, crematoria would come within the bad neighbour rules. It is significant that the bad neighbour procedures were

  1189
  followed in this case. It would be far better if planning issues such as we are engaged in now were dealt with by local authorities. It is up to them to judge a suitable place for a crematorium and whether they prefer a lawned to an urban crematorium. It is a planning matter. No two matters are exactly the same, but we are discussing bad neighbour developments generally and I suggest that many planning decisions are harder than this. They are decided by local authorities, and if the applicant is dissatisfied, the case comes before the Secretary of State on appeal. That is how this matter should be dealt with. It is all about traffic volumes and smoke emissions and they are matters which planning authorities consider all the time. That is why we recommend that, in future, such applications should not come to Parliament but should be dealt with in the normal planning way.
  Mr. Soames: I am sure that my hon. Friend's views on planning are correct but, bearing in mind the considerable work and effort that he and his colleagues have put into researching this proposition, does he believe that this is a decent, honourable and good place for bereaved people to bring their dead to cremate them? It is in the middle of a busy road near a crowded street.
  Mr. Moate: Perhaps I can put the following question to my hon. Friend.[HON.MEMBERS:"Answer."] I shall answer. My hon. Friend shows the type of preference that I would have — a cremation in what we now call a lawned crematorium. However, it is not up to us always to impose our taste——
  Mr. Janner: On my constituents.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps talking about his constituents. I remind him that, even though he said it was a mistake, the local authority gave planning permission.
  Mr. Soames: It has revoked it.
  Mr. Moate: It has not. It has changed its mind, but it has not gone so far as revoking it. Local authorities make mistakes, and if they do so, they should go through the normal procedures to revoke a decision. It is simply because we have this oddity of a parliamentary procedure that we have intervened in the normal pattern of revocation. If that is what the authority feels we should do, it should take the necessary steps. By saying that it is a matter for a local authority's decision, I am saying that it is that authority's right to revoke a decision if it so wishes.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the siting of a crematorium is plainly sui generis. There are no comparable examples and the matter must be examined on its own merits. It is unique. Does he accept that whether crematoria should be in lawned areas or in urban areas is a matter of public policy which is legitimately a matter for the Government and the House?
  Mr. Moate: I agree with the hon. Gentleman only to the extent that this might be a matter on which guidelines might be drawn. I suggest that it is not a planning matter which should come to the House.
  I have immense respect for the cremation movement. Its approach to cremation has produced enormously high standards which have generated support for it. I do not want to change that. However, it is not up to us to dictate
  1190
  for ever and a day that there must be lawned crematoria, because not everyone in urban surroundings necessarily wants that. Since the possibility of competition—or, as I prefer to call it, consumer choice — has been introduced, there has been a dramatic improvement in the facilities offered at municipal crematoria. The Committee had ample evidence of that.
  Had any hon. Member here today been on that Committee, he would not have been impressed by the evidence that we were given about the standards, the quality and the facilities available previously at municipal crematoria. If the possibility exists of expressing a consumer choice between big and beautiful lawned crematoria and a proper, respectful urban crematorium, it is up to the individual to exercise it. We are not necessarily right, therefore, to impose for ever and a day our own requirements for lawned crematoria. This alternative type of crematorium should be considered. It is because I believe that the choice should be available and that it will be for the benefit of people generally — and for the benefit of the people of Leicester, if I dare suggest it to the hon. and learned Member—that I think that this deserves support. If however, the local authority thinks that it does not, it is up to it to revoke the planning procedures in the usual way.
  We learned a great deal in the Committee. Many of us had illusions about cremating techniques. Many believed that, immediately after the cremation, the strewing of the ashes in the garden of remembrance takes place; but it is usually done on a different day. The location of the garden of remembrance, therefore, is not as important as its quality. Some of the photographs that we saw of the way in which ashes had been strewn, even at the Gilroes crematorium, left much to be desired.
  We should take into account the fact that the promoters of the Bill are a highly respected firm of undertakers, who I understand have conducted their business and earned much local respect for over 100 years. It is quite legitimate to argue about whether there should be a crematorium there, but I think it is right to believe that a firm of that repute, with so much at stake—its whole business—would not engage in something that was disrespectaful or that treated the dead with less than the reverence required at the time.
  The firm has a chapel. The buildings have been used for years for this purpose but not for cremation itself. It is quite legitimate to say that there should not be a crematorium there but it is also right to acknowledge that the firm would conduct all these affairs in a reverential and proper manner.
  I had not meant to be lured into some of the more partisan arguments involved, but I thought it right to welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said in response to the Committee's report, and to deal with some of the factual errors of the hon. and learned Member.
  I believe that the Committee was not decieved, and that it came to the right conclusion. I hope that the Bill will proceed on the basis that we recommended it, but if the planning authority decides, because of local feeling, that it should not proceed, the proper way is for it to go through normal planning procedures and revoke it, if it thinks that that is right for the people of Leicester.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I should like to begin by referring to the report which the hon.

  1191
  Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has just delivered to the House, coupled with the absence of any reference by the Under-Secretary of State to one aspect of that report. As far as I know, the Under-Secretary said what the Government were planning to do in relation to the law on cremation. I should have thought that that was a good reason for the promoters immediately to withdraw the Bill.
  The last sentence in paragraph 4 of the report, when referring to cremation and undertaking being under the same control, says:
  "This was also the subject of a Home Office report, the Home Office believing that the existing separation may lessen the risk of illegal cremation."
  It goes on in paragraph 6 to make a point which is relevant, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The Committee
  "were thus asked, purely as a result of geography, to make a decision which the Committee was told could have implications for public policy in the field of crime prevention."
  There was no reference to the Home Office report, from which I have just quoted by the Under-Secretary of State. It was not taken up by the Minister who was giving a view of the Government neither for nor against the Bill. I understand the position of Ministers dealing with private Bills, but the Home Secretary put before the Committee a statement which I shall read to the House. It said:
  "The Bill would place in the hands of a single agency the trust of obtaining on behalf of the relatives of the deceased the necessary medical certificates, (Forms B and C) required for cremation purposes, of nominating as the cremation authority the medical referee whose duty it is to scrutinise those certificates and to authorise cremation, and of carrying out the cremation itself. There is a possibility, to put it no higher, that if these duties are combined (they have hitherto been divided between the funeral directors acting on behalf of the relatives of the deceased and the cremation authority) the safeguards built into the cremation procedures to prevent the premature disposal of a body for the purpose of concealing crime may be lessened. This is particularly true where the funeral directors managing the crematorium are under pressure to cremate within 24 hours of death."
  It concluded:
  "Since the Cremation Regulations were first introduced in 1903, no crematorium has been under the same management as a firm of funeral directors as part of a single business. The Secretary of State would draw the committee's attention to the point of public policy which these effects of the Bill involve."
  Here is the Home Secretary putting a considered statement before the Committee—a statement which is referred to in the report of the Chairman of the Committee —yet there is no comment, one way or the other, in any detail. So far as I am aware — and I listened carefully to the Minister — he made no reference whatsoever to the views of the Home Secretary. I ask the Minister whether that statement still represents the considered views of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Mr. Macfarlane: That statement was given to the Special Committee, setting it up, so it clearly represents the views of the Home Office. The Home Secretary was concerned that a precedent would be considered to have been set— although I hasten to add that no reflection was made on Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge. Nevertheless, he felt bound to take into account the fact that by installing cremators as part of a funeral director's business a precedent would be set. The Committee touched on that, and the report and the contribution made by my right hon. and learned Friend is of great importance.
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I am not antagonistic to the Minister, but it is important that the Department's view is clearly stated in the House.
  Mr. Spencer: Does the hon. Gentleman know what checks are carried out to see that the certificate authorising cremation refers to the body that is ultimately cremated? Will he accept that the current practice relies extensively on the integrity of the funeral director to see that it refers to the body in respect of which it has been granted, and that that integrity will still be effective even if the Bill is passed?
  Mr. Rooker: The point I was making in putting on record the Home Secretary's statement was that the unique thing about the Bill is that it would place in the hands of a single agency all the tasks to which I referred, including, of course, nominating the medical referee. It would place these in the hands of a single agency — Ginns and Gutteridge. I make no offensive reference to this firm. Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge are highly respected funeral directors who have carried on their business of undertaking, at which they are experts, for a very long time. They are seeking to change the nature of their business and one of the effects of the Bill is to bring under their control, as a single agency, those tasks which are at present shared between different agencies. That is a very important point to which the Home Secretary drew the attention of the Committee.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point. As he says, this is unique. Ginns and Gutteridge is an excellent firm. Does he agree, however, that in America, where these things are normal and where institutions of this kind are run of the mill, the most appalling mistakes are made and that there are well-known horror stories? This must be a matter of the greatest possible concern to the House.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member is right. I should imagine that, when the House reaches amendments selected by Mr. Speaker—I hope that it will not get that far—Members on both sides of the argument as well as of the House will be able to raise those points in detail, which will be an important aspect of proceedings, but which, I repeat, I hope we shall not reach.
  This is not a party political matter, but it is a highly political matter of public policy. The purpose of the Floor of the House of Commons is to provide a forum for the discussion of such matters. When the day comes that we start to be defensive about our role, we might as well pack up shop. The issue is not privatisation or private crematoria versus public crematoria.
  It was the management at the crematorium at Perry Barr which drew my attention to the Bill in a letter, with enclosures, dated 25 January. At the outset I felt a certain uneasiness in my own capabilities in that I did not know about the Bill. I have served in the House for 10 years, and I have participated in private Bill legislation on the Floor of the House. I have served as a member of a Committee considering a private Bill, as has the hon. Member for Faversham, although the Committee on which I sat did not sit for as long as the one that considered this Bill and I was not the Chairman of it.
  I am well aware that it is the duty of hon. Members every November, when the time comes for lodging private

  1193
  legislation, to keep their eyes on what is coming before the House. All sorts of measures pass through the House of Commons under private business without being debated. The view is taken that there is nothing contentious about them and that all the problems have been sorted out. If the Bill is opposed, it is thought that the Special Committee procedure will take care of any difficulties that arise.
  The Perry Barr crematorium is lawned. It is on the edge of a park, it borders allotments and it is adjacent to a busy main road. It is a private crematorium, owned by the Great Southern Group, which also owns the crematorium in the Prime Minister's constituency. The Prime Minister has been told in a letter from the Great Southern Group dated 3 April that if the Bill passes through the House of Commons the crematorium in her constituency, which is at St. Marylebone, will be under threat of closure. The group calls upon the Prime Minister to vote against the Bill tonight. It will be interesting to see whether the right hon. Lady will do so on what is for her a constituency matter.
  The crematorium in the constituency of the Prime Minister is passing from the ownership of the Westminster city council to that of the Great Southern Group for reasons that I shall not go into. According to the letter from the group, the economics of the change of ownership would be undermined if the Bill were passed and enacted. Those facts reinforce my contention that this is not a private versus public crematoria argument. It is not an argument that should be considered on party lines.
  When I received the statement that was issued on behalf of the promoters a couple of days ago, like other hon. Members, I was taken by the statement in paragraph 3, which reads:
  "After a full debate the Bill was given a Second Reading by your honourable House on 14 February 1983."
  The debate started on Monday 14 February at 7 o'clock sharp, which is normal for private business, and it was moved by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). As far as I am aware, the debate concluded with a Division at 8.15 pm. There may be a printing error in Hansard, but I doubt it. The Bill was carried by 88 votes to 54.
  I do not consider that to be a full debate for it continued for less than the three hours which were allotted. No motions and no instructions were debated. It matters to me not one jot how many times the Committee has sat, although I pay tribute to the perseverence of all hon. Members who have served on it. When a Member of this place is summoned to attend a Private Bill Committee, he or she can be fined for non-attendance. A Member is not allowed to be absent from such a Committee although that is possible when he or she is a member of a Select Commitee or a Standing Committee. The rules for Private Bill Committees are onerous in the extreme. However, as I have said, it matters to me not one jot that the Committee had 25 sittings. That must be set against the debate on the Floor of the House on Second Reading, which lasted for one hour and 15 minutes, and which was described by the promoters as a full debate.
  I regret that the hon. Member for Harborough is not in his place, although I see that he is within my hearing. It is deplorable that he should have sought by a procedural motion to stop any further debate on the Bill at this stage. The motion extended to any hon. Member who was not a Member of this place before the general election or to any hon. Member who did not serve on the Committee. It was
  1194
  designed to prevent Members in that category from debating a supreme issue of public policy on the Floor of the House. The issue is whether we should start making crematoria look like factories. I deplore the attempt that has been made to stifle debate.
  I shall confine myself to the rules of debate on a private Bill and make one or two remarks about the Bill's contents. I shall not allude to the amendments. It has been said on several occasions that Ginns and Gutteridge is good at its job and I have no doubt that it is a trustworthy firm. However, clause 2 states:
  "In this Act 'the Company' means Ginns and Gutteridge Limited and includes their successors".
  The Bill does not apply only to the one company that is owned by one group, although I understand that it is a long-standing family business. The Bill is seeking permission for the special powers within it to be passed on to another company or another family at some stage in future. I object to clause 2, which is the interpretation clause.
  Clause 3 is entitled "Provision of crematorium" and it attempts to define the premises. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) covered some of the details of location in Leicester. He was in order to do so and the occupant of the Chair would have called him to order if he had strayed from it. Clause 3 delineates the premises. It describes them as
  "227 square metres or thereabouts"
  at a particular address in Vaughan way. It says that it was outlined on a map signed by the hon. Member and deposited in the Private Bill Office to show that that was the exact location. I object in principle to a crematorium on an inner city site. It would not matter whether it was owned and run by the funeral directors. The point of principle is that the crematorium is on an inner city site, in factory-type premises.
  Mr. Spencer: Does the hon. Gentleman object to chapels of rest being on such sites? On occasions they may contain as many as 15 deceased persons who are visited by friends and relatives.
  Mr. Rooker: I have visited chapels of rest of funeral directors in the inner city of Birmingham.
  Mr. Spencer: What is the difference?
  Mr. Rooker: The difference is that people do not generally go there in family groups, and services for the deceased are not conducted there. It is a visit to the chapel of rest—no more and no less. It may not happen on the day of the funeral; it may be the day before. In other words, it is not relevant and there is no connection between that aspect of bereavement and going to the crematorium for the service. There is a substantial difference. If the hon. and learned Member cannot see the difference, I cannot convince him that there is one.
  I object in principle to a crematorium in inner-city premises. The premises may have a chapel of rest, a 6,000 gallon petrol tank and dining facilities, so the wake may be taking place on one floor while the coffin is being cremated in the basement. This is an obscenity in relation to the conduct of a cremation ceremony.
  Mr. Farr: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that this is happening already in many municipal crematoria. It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The City

  1195
  of London has an identical crematorium in the basement of its premises, which are probably within a mile of the Palace of Westminster where we are talking this evening.
  Mr. Rooker: If I had the opportunity as a Member of Parliament to go into the Lobby I should vote against that. It is not relevant to the argument. We are discussing the uniqueness of the Bill and the funeral directors who wish to expand their business. I did not have the opportunity to express a view about the premises referred to by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It is a quirk of law that hon. Members have the opportunity to vote on this proposal.
  Clause 3(2)(a), a paragraph put in by the Committee, says:
  "No cremations of human remains shall take place on the land specified in subsection (1) above until the Company has acquired"
  and so on. I do not want to go over all the arguments about whether the company has acquired a garden of remembrance; nor do I wish to enter into the argument about the bishops.
  The situation has changed completely since Second Reading. When the hon. Member for Harborough was speaking then, there was an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Harborough as follows:
  "Mr. Farr: I have learnt to treat the hon. Gentleman's interventions with respect. They always have great merit. The company hopes to make it clear during the Committee stage that a special garden of remembrance and rest will be provided for the ashes.
  Ron Lewis: Near the crematorium?
  Mr. Farr: At the crematorium." — [Official Report, 14 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 72]
  The hon. Member for Harborough said, "At the crematorium." There was no question of a garden of remembrance at a local church or at other premises within walking distance, driving distance or flying distance. He said, "At the crematorium."
  One can only assume that when the hon. Member for Harborough was moving the Second Reading on behalf of the promoters he was speaking to the brief provided. In the circumstances, that is all that one can do. The question arises as to the good faith of the brief which must have been provided for the hon. Member. What I have heard in the debate about the correspondence from the Church, added to what was said on Second Reading, leads me to believe that the House was misled, though not by the hon. Member for Harborough. I make no imputation against him, because he must have been speaking to a brief supplied by the promoters. There was an attempt deliberately to mislead the House to get the Bill passed. The impression was given that there would be a garden of remembrance and that it would be at the crematorium. It clearly states "at the crematorium". Therefore, I object to the fact that the Committee has been forced to insert into the Bill clause 3(2).
  Mr. Straw: Does my hon. Friend agree that while no imputation of bad faith can be made against the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fair), he owes the House an explanation of how he came to make such an extraordinary and inaccurate statement that the garden of remembrance would be at the crematorium? Perhaps he might be advised to do so now.
  Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Member for Harborough wishes to speak, I shall give way, and if he wishes to take advice in the meantime, that is fair enough by me.
  Mr. Farr: The matter is quite simple. In the debate in February last year, I said that Ginns and Gutteridge would have liked to have a garden of remembrance at the crematorium. That has since proved to be impossible, and subsequently it attempted to get the use of a churchyard several hundred yards away from the crematorium. That plan has now fallen through. To put at rest once and for all the issue whether a garden of remembrance for the scattering of ashes and for the conduct of small services will be available, I can tell the House that a site for the garden of remembrance has been acquired and is in the possession of the company.
  Mr. Rooker: When the hon. Member rose—having failed in his attempt to stop any debate at 7 o'clock—to move consideration, why did he not give that information to the House? Why is it not possible to give chapter and verse for where the site is? Why was no response made to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West when he made his point about the churchyard?
  Mr. Farr: I have given the facts now because I have been given the information recently by the promoters of the Bill. I ask the House to accept my word that a site has been acquired and will be treated for the proper purpose——
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Where?
  Mr. Farr: —in a reverential manner, and not in the jocular manner used by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) when he referred to this particular purpose. Many of us think that a garden of remembrance is a special place. I should be happy to have it in my constituency, wherever it may be.
  Mr. Rooker: Clause 3(2) says that there should be no cremation unless a churchyard is obtained,
  "or some other land which is agreed between the Company and the Leicester City Council".
  This land has been acquired, but has Leicester city council agreed to it? Has the condition of the Bill that the hon. Member is seeking to get through the House been complied with? Does Leicester city council know about the site, and has it agreed to it?
  Mr. Spencer: Read paragraph (b).
  Mr. Rooker: Oh, "Read paragraph (b)," says the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). That implies that Leicester city council will not agree to the land, and paragraph (b) will have to be used for the company to go to arbitration. So Leicester city council has not agreed to the land that has been obtained.
  Mr. Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said that he has, through no fault of his own, only recently heard that Ginns and Gutteridge has purchased this new site to spread the ashes, it is surprising that the new site — bearing in mind that the Bill makes a specific reference to All Saints' church, Highcross street, "or some other land"—is not entered as an amendment so that we can be aware of it and judge whether the land is suitable within the context of the Bill, and be told whether Leicester city council has approved of it?
  Mr. Rooker: As I understand it, it is in order for the promoters to move amendments at the consideration stage of a private Bill. They would obviously have to do it through an hon. Member, but there are no amendments down in the name of anyone remotely connected with the promoters of the Bill. We are in a bit of a pickle. More than halfway through the consideration debate we are given some new and relevant information that impinges on the Bill. Clearly, it is assumed that Leicester city council will not approve the site. It appears, from an earlier intervention from a sedentary position by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), that the matter will go to arbitration, and if that fails will end up with the Secretary of State. We have arrived at a most unsatisfactory point.
  Mr. Farr: I know the hon. Gentleman well. I know also that he is sincere and believes in what he is saying. He must accept my statement on behalf of Ginns and Gutteridge that no deception or misdirection of the House was intended. Until very recently Ginns and Gutteridge believed in all good faith that the churchyard of All Saints church in Highcross street would be available. That area has a special significance to Mr. Ginns, because his grandfather's name is on a plaque inside the church.
  The negotiations were proceeding happily and speedily, until recently when they came to a sudden halt. Ginns and Gutteridge has therefore taken steps and has recently acquired an alternative site. The details have not yet been submitted for approval to the city council. Those plans will be submitted in accordance with the Bill's provisions and the Secretary of State will, if necessary, determine whether the site is suitable. That is the present position.
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The House is, therefore, being asked to put on the statute book a part of clause 3(2) which is wholly irrelevant, and we know it. I refer to All Saints church, Highcross street. That matter is not on the agenda for consideration at this time. Before the Bill is enacted, the reference to All Saints church in subsection 2(a) should, in all fairness and conscience, not still be in the legislation. It should be removed so that people do not accuse us of passing legislation which we know to be inaccurate.
  I say in all fairness to the hon. Member for Harborough that, given the delicate nature of the negotiations that are to occur, he should request that consideration of the Bill be adjourned. The debate should be stopped, so that the hon. Gentleman can return on another day to tell the House whether Leicester city council has given approval to the site. Ginns and Gutteridge is not paying for our presence, other than as general taxpayers, so adjourning consideration will not impose extra costs. In view of the hon. Gentleman's statements, we would be placing gobbledegook on the statute book if we continued the debate.
  Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not going to move that further consideration be adjourned. I shall leave discussion on subsection (2) because we now have better information, to which I cannot fully address my mind while speaking. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House can discuss those issues later.
  I do not agree with the Committee's recommendation that section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 should be repealed. We should not let local council planning committees free reign over local crematoria. Progress has
  1198
  been made, and I am grateful for what the Under-Secretary of State said. I hope that the Government will not accept clause 3(3). That part of the Bill is objectionable.
  I do not believe that the country has reached such a state that the public at large, whom we represent, are prepared to accept—I say this with no sense of acrimony to any religion—the sheer damned godlessness of this type of cremation activity occurring next to a public highway, in a building adjacent to a six-lane road, without proper parking facilities or a decent garden and with the bereaved having to walk to the chapel from nearby car parks. That is not on. I do not believe that when my or any other hon. Members' constituents see what we are being asked to approve they will say, "Yes, go on and approve it." I believe that in their hundreds and thousands they will say, "What on earth are you doing even debating such a Bill?"
  Mr. Hind rose——
  Mr. Rooker: I was not aware that the hon. Member was in the Chamber, but I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Hind: I have been here for some time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in many respects this is a dreadful waste of parliamentary time? We are not being asked to decide a principle—under what circumstances a cremation can take place—but what, effectively, is nothing more than a planning application that should be referred to Leicester district council? The arguments you have put forward reinforce what I have just said.
  Mr. Rooker: You are putting forward no arguments, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am. I do not consider private business brought to the Floor of the House a waste of time. However trivial it might be in the hon. Member's mind, great matters of public policy can flow from apparently minor legislation.
  I shall allude briefly only to another private Bill, or I shall be ruled out of order. A private Bill was brought before the House of Commons in 1976 which involved the compulsory purchase of 47·5 acres of foreshore at Nigg bay—the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill. That land was the block on the construction of a £200 million oil refinery by Daniel K. Ludwig, the richest man in the world. The House of Commons became involved in discussing 47·5 acres of Scottish foreshore. That seemed trivial, until one realised what lay behind it in terms of energy and oil refinery policy. I make no apology, and nor should any other hon. Member, when private legislation that involves an element of major public policy, as this does, is brought before the House.
  If the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is here for some time, I hope he will remember my words when other legislation in which, for some reason, he takes an interest comes before the House which other hon. Members might question.
  Mr. Moate: The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman alluded is the one on which he and I fought side by side. I agree with what he is saying about the opportunities private Bills sometimes give to discuss major matters. Once one has examined some of these minor points that give rise to major policy, is that not the time to re-examine the correct way to proceed in respect of matters relating to the Home Office and planning generally? Does he agree that this is an unsatisfactory procedure for examining the

  1199
  homicidal tendencies of doctors, which is what is presupposed, or bad neighbour developments generally? Is it not time to consider how better to approach these general policies?
  Mr. Rooker: For a start, I should like to reform the private Bill procedure. One of the hon. Gentleman's constituents was involved with the other Bill. That Bill had been through the Scottish Order Confirmation Bill procedure. There had been umpteen meetings in Edinburgh. In effect, it had passed its Committee stage. It was in the same parliamentary position as this Bill. We were told that it had been looked at by Members of Parliament in a Special Committee in Edinburgh. We were told that it was nothing to do with the House of Commons or hon. Members in Faversham, Perry Barr or Keighley. We were told to keep out of it, although great matters of public policy were to be debated.
  The final point to which I object is the part that the Committee has inserted in clause 4. In clause 4(2) there is a reference to the equipment that will be used. The requirement is
  "that the equipment of the crematorium shall operate so as not at any time to create any discharge of smoke or smell from the premises".
  As I understand it — I may be wrong, and we may receive further and better advice as the night goes on—this equipment has never been installed in this country.
  The equipment is of American origin and is held in at least one case to have been a prime cause of a fire in an American crematorium. Therefore, it is untried and untested in this country. Modern crematorium equipment is very sophisticated. There has been increasing acceptance of the cremation movement in this century and, as that has come about, more people have realised—I hate to use the word "productivity"— that, as private profit is involved a surplus must be made for the businesses to survive. I accept that as a way of life. None the less, the sophisticated equipment that may be installed is untried and untested in this country. If I am wrong, I hope that an hon. Member will say so.
  The Committee, not the promoters of the Bill, inserted new clause 2. The promoters did not promise to use equipment that would not give off smokes or smells. The Committee put in the clause. The promoters, through the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), promised that there would be a garden of remembrance at the crematorium, but they gave no commitment that the equipment would not give off smokes or smells. They have handled the matter very unprofessionally, to put it at its politest, throughout. I object to the Bill proceeding further in the House.
  The Committee members have not visited the premises. I can understand their reasons. Like them, I have seen lots of photographs. I confess that I was put off by the photographs of the premises supplied by the crematorium in my area. Hon. Members receive representations from their constituents. I am sure that you have received them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members receive a mountain of bumf every day from every organisation and individual with a beef. The main thing to watch is that, in the general, non-constituency mail, crucial correspondence does not slip through the net.
  The photographs of Ginns and Gutteridge's premises that were given to me by the crematorium superintendent in my area—that crematorium is in the same group that owns the one that I hope will be operated in the Prime
  1200
  Minister's constituency—made me read the seven or eight pages in detail. I could not believe what the letter was about, after reading the first three paragraphs. I called on the superintendent of the Birmingham crematorium and said to him that I could not believe what I had read and asked him whether he was sure that the photographs were of premises that someone intended, in all conscience, to use as a crematorium. The pictures showed three lanes of traffic going past the premises, and exits next to Shellubrication signs, petrol pumps and advertisment hoardings. It showed a typical rear access view of industrial premises, with mechanics working on vehicles. The bereaved would be expected to go through the ordeal of facing such a scene when they went to the chapel of rest or attended the cremation.
  We must put further restrictions in the Bill, if the occasion arises, to make it stronger and workable. None of the amendments on the Order Paper could be classified by any hon. Member on either side of the House—or of the argument — as a wrecking amendment. Each amendment strengthens the Bill and would make it operate better than in the form in which it has come from Committee. It is, of course, considerably better after the Committee's amendments than it was when it started its life.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Bearing in mind what he has drawn to our attention towards the end of his speech, can he tell the House, or hazard a guess, why so many hon. Members seem to be determined, even knowing those facts, that the crematorium will still go to Leicester? Why must it go there? I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to two simple questions: is the crematorium needed in Leicester and is it wanted by the people of Leicester?
  Mr. Rooker: The answer to both those interesting questions is clearly no, as shown by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West in whose constituency the crematorium would be situated, and by the number of Conservative Members who have produced a private Whip.
  I cannot give full answers to those questions, and I shall not repeat the rumours that I and no doubt other hon. Members have heard about why the planning committee was advised to approve the application in the first place and why it was not later advised to revoke the application —a costly process, but far less costly to the city council than the eventual bill for this little lot. I do not know why and the question has bothered me, too, since I saw the weight of support in private Whips and the partisan nature of some Conservative contributions.
  One wonders why a respected company, which is good at undertaking—we do not know about cremation as it has never done any—should bring forward an obnoxious proposal to change the law of the land to secure a unique scope for its own premises. Why has the proposal been pushed so hard for so long? I do not know, but I am a naturally suspicious fellow, which sometimes gets me into trouble. I am also a nosey parker and I intend to find some answers before the next debate on this matter. In logic, the argument is against the proposers. In conscience and in public policy it is also against them. The attitude of the vast majority of British people also seems to be against them. Certainly no one in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency favours the proposal, as he has received no representations to that effect.

  1201
  I do not know why the proposal has been pushed so far, but we must make sure that we get as many answers as possible and explore the thoughts, desires and wishes of the proposers as much as possible. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will ensure that that is done.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I believe that I am unique among hon. Members in having visited the Ginns and Gutteridge premises, so I speak with some knowledge in this serious matter. I believe that the site and the facilities are satisfactory and adequate. They are run by a respectable company which has been in existence since 1840 and cares about the community throughout the city of Leicester.
  Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bruinvels: No, I shall not give way.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that he had received no representations in favour of the proposal, but representations have been made to me from that part of the city. I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not in the Chamber. No doubt he is on television or something like that. I take great exception when he presumes to speak for the whole city.
  I have visited Ginns and Gutteridge twice. I should point out to hon. Members that the company's premises are in Vaughan way, not on the high street. It is a family concern and is unique in being prepared to offer, seven days a week and 365 days a year, a 24-hour service, which genuinely cares and caters for the whole community. Hon. Members have spoken about the proposed crematorium but not about the company. It is not just a matter of private versus municipal. Why should a very good private company not be allowed to operate this new facility? We do not know what need there is for another crematorium in Leicester, but the company is prepared to offer one and it should be respected for that.
  The Leiceser City Council granted planning permission on 5 October 1982. As we tried to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), that has not been revoked. Ginns and Gutteridge gave the Select Committee an undertaking that it would provide 65 car parking spaces, and 30 already exist. I have been to the site and I assure Opposition Members that that is so. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) wishes to learn something for a change, he should listen.
  Mr. Ernie Ross rose——
  Mr. Bruinvels: I shall not give way.
  Ginns and Gutteridge already has an excellent chapel of rest. People forget that this company, formed in 1840, is located on a regular site. The whole of the city of Leicester knows where it is — by the traffic lights. People stop there and know the premises belongs to Ginns and Gutteridge.
  There is nothing new in funeral directors offering a crematorium facility. Ginns and Gutteridge genuinely believes that it will not cause smoke, offence to the 28 residents in the neighbouring area, or damage and disturbance to some of the other companies in the area.
  Death is a serious, trying and disturbing time for everyone. It affects the whole city, and the people of
  1202
  Leicester, West and those living up to 12 miles around the city should be offered an alternative crematorium to the one at Gilroes, which to date has been little used.
  During the inquiry, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) served, various changes were offered in respect of the facilities at Gilroes crematorium. From having piped music, there was suddenly an organ, and from closing at 3 o'clock on a Friday, it was decided to stay open a bit longer. That is being done because Gilroes is worried about competition, but what is wrong with competition if the company is respectable?
  Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruinvels: I am sorry, but I wish to get on.
  It is alleged that a hoist will be used to bring up the coffins, but there is a six-passenger lift from the basement up to the relevant floor. Therefore, the allegation about having a hoist was wholly unwarranted.
  Why is the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West so against this company? Has he visited it, discussed this matter or tried to assist? The fact that Leicester city council is Labour-controlled and that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a Labour Member has, I suppose, nothing to do with it.
  Mention has already been made of the Bishop of Leicester, the Right Reverend Richard Rutt. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I find it incredible that the Bishop has only just found out that this Bill is before the House and that there is the possibility of another crematorium. That is amazing. I and other hon. Members have spoken about this on the radio, and articles have regularly appeared in the Leicester Mercury. The matter was debated on 14 February 1983, yet the Bishop has only just found out. That is strange — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It could be that he was not in the city as much as he ought to have been. We do not know.
  Mr. Soames rose——
  Mr. Bruinvels: I shall not give way.
  On 28 March the Bishop wrote to all hon. Members asking them to oppose the Bill. That was surprising because I thought that he would have done so last year, when he wrote expressing great concern. He wrote to me again on 3 April. It is incredible that he could not find out until 28 March that this site was being considered.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: As a member of the Committee, it was not my intention to intervene, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is perhaps necessary to make sure that right hon. and hon. Members are aware that, whereas on matters of doctrine one might well approach the bishop direct, on matters appertaining to the fabric of churches and grounds on which churches stand, particularly redundant churches, the method of approach would be to the archdeacon?
  Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend. What he says is quite correct and I understand that there was an approach to Archdeacon Silk. However, as a member of a diocesan synod myself, I would have thought that there would have been regular meetings and that the bishop would have been told exactly what was going on and why it was necessary.
  It is particularly interesting to me that so many hon. Members who have spoken in this debate did not take part in the debate in the House on 14 February 1983. It may

  1203
  be that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West was unable to be here, but he is supposed to represent his constituents and I would have thought that he would have made quite sure that he came to the House for that debate.
  Similarly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who represents a constituency not very far from Leicester, might perhaps have wished to be in the Chamber on that day. Finally. the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)——
  Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the House five minutes. I have already made it quite clear, and he listened——
  Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether that is a point of order.
  Mr. Rooker: The point of order is that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to impugn my integrity when I had already made it clear that it was only when my local crematorium wrote to me that I was aware of this matter. I said I was remiss in not being aware of it in February 1983.
  Mr. Speaker: No hon. Member should impugn any other hon. Member's integrity. Mr. Peter Bruinvels.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I have the impression that I did not impugn anyone's integrity.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn also did not take part in that debate. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that I have not been in the House very long, but it is 10 months to the day.
  As we know, this debate took place during sittings of the Committee. I believe, having read the report— I really have read it—that virtually all the points that have been rehearsed by a number of hon. Members in the Chamber have been well and truly debated before. I understood that we were here to try to get a decision, not to filibuster or waste time.
  I said earlier that death is not pleasant for anybody, and I sympathise with all the people in the city who feel that they would like an alternative to the Gilroes crematorium. Choice is offered by Ginns and Gutteridge—choice and service at any time. I think that is courageous because we do not know whether they will be successful, whether many people will use their facilities, but we do know that they have spent a tremendous amount of money trying to offer the citizens of Leicester that alternative.
  There is one crematorium within 12 miles of the city centre and there are at least 300,000 potential users. No one has to use these particular facilities, but the ethnic minority, which plays quite a substantial role in the city of Leicester, would, I believe, welcome such an alternative. The Moslems would not, because they have their own facilities and tend to be buried rather than cremated, but the Hindus would welcome such a facility. This might seem unpleasant to some hon. Members, but in some cases Hindus wish to burn their dead themselves. Ginns and Gutteridge make this possible by allowing bereaved members of the family to go forward and press the button, and see their loved ones successfully cremated. That is something that is to be commended.
  I have referred already to the tranquil surroundings. The site itself is tranquil, and there is adequate parking.
  I must, in fairness, agree that hon. Members who have spoken about the garden of remembrance have a point. I have spoken to the Ginns family on the subject. They believed that All Saints churchyard would be offered to them, and they were in negotiation on the subject.
  Mr. Janner rose——
  Mr. Bruinvels: No, I will not give way.
  Ginns and Gutteridge had that belief throughout the hearings, and I do not believe that anybody has been blatantly dishonest. The fact that tonight we have heard — some of us knew it a few days ago — that an alternative site has been purchased shows that the argument adduced on that point is unfounded.
  Mr. Janner rose——
  Mr. Bruinvels: I had hoped that tonight we would have a debate reflecting the time that has been given to this disturbing subject over many months. Instead, Opposition Members have made only historic points.
  The local authority must be responsible for our debating the issue today. If it wants to revoke permission, it will have an opportunity to do so, but as it gave permission, it must bear responsibility for doing that. Indeed, I go further and say that if the Bill were to find its way onto the statute book, the city councillors in Leicestershire should be surcharged for wasting time. This has cost a lot of money to contest. Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge is an honourable company and should be given a chance.
  Mr. Janner: Nobody is disputing the honour of the family of Ginns and Gutteridge. As the hon. Gentleman spoke to them, may I ask him to say whether they told him that they had or had not approached the bishop or the diocese regarding the churchyard?
  Mr. Bruinvels: They had, when I met them, approached the diocese and were in active negotiation throughout the period.
  Mr. Janner: With the bishop?
  Mr. Bruinvels: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was in his place when my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) highlighted that point. Archdeacon Silk was taking part in the negotiations at the time about which I am speaking.
  We are debating an important subject. I had hoped that the House would give this company the right to give the people of the city of Leicester the opportunity of an alternative facility. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Like other hon. Members, I did not intend to participate in this debate. However, having heard the comments of the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate), I thought it might be useful to make a short contribution, as one who took part in the Committee proceedings from day one.
  I would have been more impressed with the case made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East had I seen him at more than one or two of the Committee's sittings.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I attended three of the Committee's meetings, three more than some hon. Members in the Chamber tonight attended.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's attendance at three out of a possible 20 sittings of the Committee suggests that he does not know much about the subject. Consider, for example, the question of car parking. Does he know that the proposals for car parking facilities altered twice during

  1205
  the Committee's deliberations? Is he further aware that some of the information we were given was found to be incorrect?
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of 30 parking spaces in or near the premises in Vaughan way. It would require a full-time attendant to guide cars in and out of the area. Indeed, people might have to make special insurance arrangements to cover them for the knocks that would undoubtedly occur if 30 cars had to park in that restricted area.
  Does the hon. Gentleman also appreciate that the other car parking facility is almost as far away as the All Saints churchyard where it was originally intended that the ashes should be strewn? Does he also understand that it was only in Committee that we discovered that the land to be used was at All Saints church and now we learn that it is some other piece of land? As somebody who spent 25 sittings of the Committee considering that part of Leicester, I cannot think of any vacant piece of land that could be used other than All Saints churchyard. I should be interested to hear where that new piece of land is, because it was never referred to in Committee.
  One thing that did become clear in Committee was that some of the exaggerated claims that were made by the manufacturers of the intended crematorium would never have come to light unless the Committee had done its job. I commend my hon. Friends on the Committee for their determination to get to the bottom of the matter. The Bill exposed the real flaws in the arguments that were presented. As an engineer, I was rather annoyed to discover that the expert witness whom Ginns and Gutteridge brought before the Committee had no experience of crematoria. He had never been in charge of a crematorium and had never as an engineer been involved in the design, planning or installation of a crematorium, yet he was the expert witness called before the Committee.
  Mr. Cowans: As a member of the Committee perhaps my hon. Friend will examine what the Chairman of the Committee said. If I understand him correctly, he said that Ginns and Gutteridge's business was at stake. That was never said in Committee.
  Mr. Ross: In fairness to the hon. Member for Faversham, I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood him. As far as I can recall, it is the second biggest undertaking business in Leicester and, with or without the crematorium, its business would not have been affected. The Gilroes crematorium has adequate facilities.
  The Bill has highlighted a serious malpractice in crematoria. If it does nothing else, if it means the Leicester city council has had to improve the conditions of the Gilroes crematorium we should all be pleased. I hope that the House and every planning department looks at every crematorium. The hon. Member for Faversham was correct to say that a representative of the Federation of British Cremation Authorities admitted that the general practices in almost all crematoria need to be looked at and tightened. If that is all that the discussion tonight produces we shall have done the country a service.
  Mr. John Farr rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 52.

  Division No. 233]

  [9.48 pm

  AYES

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

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

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lang, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Cope, John

  MacGregor, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dunn, Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Eggar, Tim

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Farr, John

  Moate, Roger

  Favell, Anthony

  Murphy, Christopher

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Nelson, Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Neubert, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Parris, Matthew

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Penhaligon, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Powley, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Raffan, Keith

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Spencer, Derek

  Hayward, Robert

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Waddington, David

  Hickmet, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hind, Kenneth

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Hirst, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Hooson, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howard, Michael

  Mr. Peter Bruinvels and Mr. David Ashby.

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  NOES

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Barron, Kevin

  McCrea, Rev William

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Conlan, Bernard

  Nellist, David

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Norris, Steven

  Coombs, Simon

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

  Couchman, James

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Cowans, Harry

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Rooker, J. W.

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

  Sims, Roger

  Dixon, Donald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dobson, Frank

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Dubs, Alfred

  Speed, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Foulkes, George

  Straw, Jack

  Ground, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Tracey, Richard

  Haynes, Frank

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Holt, Richard

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Winnick, David

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Tony Banks.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Whereupon MR. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now considered.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I start by saying that, in every respect, there is no criticism in anything that may have been said in the House in the course of this evening's debate——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Adjournment (Easter and Monday 7th May) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  Adjournment (Easter and May Day)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House at its rising on Friday 13th April do adjourn till Wednesday 25th April, and at its rising on Friday 4th May do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 13th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
  10 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: There is concern over the continued erosion of civil liberties and I think that this is a matter that should be raised before we go into the Easter recess. We have of course, had, notification of the Bill which is to be debated next Wednesday for the abolition of elections for the metropolitan county councils. Perhaps the Leader of the House will explain to us why the Committee stage of that Bill cannot be taken on the Floor of the House.
  There have been other matters too, such as the ban on trade unions at GCHQ and, more recently—no doubt this will be raised by other hon. Members—the way in which the police are stopping miners from travelling from one part of the country to another. That is a very important matter which should be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
  I also await an answer from the Home Secretary about the matters raised last week under Standing Order No. 10, about miners who were arrested and asked pointed questions, such as how they had voted at the last general election and how they voted in internal elections of the National Union of Mineworkers. In answer to a question of mine on Tuesday, the Minister said that he was awaiting a report from the chief constable of Nottinghamshire. We shall have to see the reply to those questions.
  The matter that I particularly want to raise this evening, which certainly concerns civil liberties, is section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. As I understand it, I am not allowed to raise a particular case because that case has yet to go before the courts again. I will not attempt to do so. It should be said, however, that much concern has already been expressed about this case and, when the appeal has been dealt with, I trust that the Attorney-General will make a statement to the House on how that case was handled from the start.
  Before the House rises for the Easter recess and agrees to the motion which is before us, we should have some opportunity of a debate or at least a statement next week on the implications of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. The attitude now adopted by the Government to section 2 is quite different from that which was taken when Ministers were in opposition.
  In June 1978, a year before the Conservative party won the election, there was a debate on the Official Secrets Act, which hon. Members will probably recall. It is interesting to note that the debate was held in Opposition time. It was opened by the present Attorney-General, who was then shadow Attorney-General and legal adviser to the Shadow Cabinet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who initiated the debate was very critical indeed of section 2.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, referring to the 1911 Act:
  "Clearly, there was no real understanding in the House of the enormous scope covered by section 2."
  1210
  He talked about the measure passing through the House one Friday afternoon in 1911 and said that the Conservative Opposition accepted that
  "Section 2 of the Act is outdated and far too widely drawn."
  He urged that a new official information Act should take its place and argued that the criminal law should be used
  "only to prevent information the disclosure of which would really be against the public interest.
  He promised that new legislation would be introduced once his party formed an Administration.
  Another contributor to the debate was the present Home Secretary. He said:
  "The damage that a law of this kind creates"—
  that is, section 2—
  "cannot be gauged by the number of prosecutions that are brought …the law as it stands faces the press with an ever-present implied threat and helps to perpetuate the all-pervading atmosphere of secrecy that has for far too long pervaded British government.
  In other words, that section of the Act is simply indefensible, yet it is still there. Why is that?"
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered his own question by saying that the Government—the then Labour Government—
  "have not had the courage to fight and overcome the strenuous rearguard action mounted in … Whitehall."
  It would be good if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, were to repeat the words which he used when he concluded his speech from the Opposition Benches in 1978. He said:
  "For us, the best protection of the citizen is a free Press and a free parliament. As it stands, the Official Secrets Act is an obstacle to both and should be repealed."— [Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1257–1275.]
  When the matter has been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Prime Minister has stated that the Government have no intention—this is how I understand it—of doing anything about section 2. All the right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative Benches who spoke in the 1978 debate were of the same vein and the same persuasion as the present Attorney-General and the present Home Secretary.
  We are all aware of the catch-all provisions of section 2. No piece of official information, classified or not, can be disclosed to any unauthorised person. The section is convenient for Ministers, as they can decide who should do the leaking to the press. There has been no lack of leaks under this Government; Ministers leak frequently. I suppose that it can be argued that leaking takes place under every Government, but there seem to have been more leaks from Ministers in this Administration than from many previous ones. However, someone has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for doing what Ministers do all the time by passing on information to the press. We have what can only be described as a form of Government news management. Ministers decide from the Prime Minister downwards what should be leaked to the press and what should not.
  Until this year it was the custom to learn most about the Budget from the Sunday newspapers before the Chancellor delivered his Budget statement. No one received six months' imprisonment for leaking that information. We recognise, as the Conservative party did when it was in Opposition, that section 2 is, to use the word of the present Home Secretary, "indefensible". Section 2 should go and we should have a freedom of information Act.
  The case which I am not allowed to go into because it is sub judice provides the background to the present controversy over section 2. Perhaps the case has served

  1211
  one useful purpose. It has undoubtedly ensured that the controversy over section 2 will start all over again. Before that case, not much concern was expressed in the House even from the Opposition Benches. Now it has become very much a matter of public controversy and there is pressure for section 2 to be repealed because it is an infringement of individual liberties and of many people's rights. I suppose it can be argued that the case I am referring to has served that purpose.
  The Leader of the House should bear in mind what was said in the debate in June 1978 by his colleagues who were then on the Opposition Benches. He should recognise that there is mounting concern outside the House that there should be a change in the law. It is indefensible that section 2 should remain in force, although it seems that the Government wish the Act to stay as it is. I hope that, before the House rises for the Easter recess, there will be a statement by the Attorney-General or by the Home Secretary on what action is to be taken on section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Once Sarah Tisdall's case is no longer sub judice, I hope that the way in which it was dealt with will be the basis of a statement by the Attorney-General.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the House rises for the Easter recess it should consider the role of the Government in relation to legislation on moral issues, especially those affecting young people. Often the initiative for matters of such great concern to our citizens is left for private Members' Bills, as with the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, with which I was closely associated in the last Parliament. The same approach appears to be continuing, as is evidenced by the Video Recordings Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), and of which I am proud to be a sponsor.
  That Bill is intended to safeguard the public against being unwillingly exposed to video cassettes of a violent or horrific nature, often portraying scenes of sexual sadism. It is a recognition that it is wrong to inflict these matters on anyone who may find them offensive. The current legislation on indecent displays has particular implications for young people, who can express full judgment only with maturity. It is a further recognition that support for parents, as they, too, seek to protect their children, is a matter which should be of prime importance to the House. But people in the United Kingdom understandably look to the Government to give a lead in such matters. The vast majority expect there to be a moral dimension to the ordering of the affairs of state.
  Admittedly, certain views have been expressed in some minority quarters about interference with freedom and about the implications of introducing censorship, the latter hardly without precedent in this country. Indeed, for many years the signature of my namesake, Mr. Stephen Murphy, was seen to flit across cinema screens throughout the land before every film was shown, providing an authoratitive guide to its content via the certificate.
  I have long made clear my adherence to the concept of freedom, in particular that of the individual. Once again it should be emphasised that there is freedom from as well as freedom to, and the word "responsibility" can never be divorced from freedom, thus giving a basis for Government action.
  1212
  I have also long advocated a recognition of the concept of common sense. The vast majority of the people whom we seek to represent will know full well what they believe constitutes a so-called video nasty, an indecent display or whatever. It is an assessment that must be given full backing in Government action.
  Although private Members' Bills have had certain marked successes in tackling moral issues, I urge the Government, before the Easter recess, to start to deal with certain outstanding problems without further delay. Two more very evident and serious ones exist, those of underage sexual relations and glue sniffing, which I and many hon. Members have brought to the attention of the House on previous occasions, and regretfully there are many others such as pornography and drug abuse that need firmer measures. Again, I and many hon. Members have raised these issues in the past.
  The House should have at its heart, and as its watchword, protection — especially protection of children from unnecessary and potentially harmful violence, obscenity and the like. To provide that protection, which is so evidently needed from many rapidly-growing and increasingly widespread evils, the country should be able to look to the Government for a direct response. The House should emphatically give its support to such actions on behalf of our constituents. who will overwhelmingly endorse such moral fortitude.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: As we contemplate the House adjourning for the Easter recess, it is appropriate to remind ourselves and the electorate that Ministers and their staffs and, for that matter, Members of Parliament, are not going on holiday. For the Northern Ireland Office, Easter marks the beginning of a period of stocktaking and planning for its year, which begins about mid-June. That is when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to Parliament to seek authority to govern Northern Ireland for yet another year, and to suggest how he can improve on the methods of governing in the preceding twelve months.
  I fear that this year the Northern Ireland Office is in real danger of running out of steam, because for some months it has been what one can only call obsessed with the body known as the Dublin Forum. It has been hypnotised to the extent that its members, staffing a Department of her Majesty's Government, are incapable of maintaining the degree of momentum or forward thinking that is essential for the functioning of any Department of State.
  What can be the Department's justification for freezing in its tracks? Surely the staff know from experience that nothing useful can be expected from an external body based in a foreign independent state. I am glad to recognise it as such because that is its claim, and all honour to it. However, nothing by way of suggestions for the better internal government of the United Kingdom can come from a body that has declared as its aim the dismembering of the United Kingdom.
  Does the Northern Ireland Office not realise that its political paralysis makes it even more vulnerable to those who allege that Northern Ireland is a failed entity? We have suffered enough from the Secretary of State's misguided assertion that he can make no improvement in the mechanism of governing Northern Ireland unless there is widespread support for each and every move. It is worth

  1213
  considering how much less effective the Leader of the House could be in his management of our business affairs if he subscribed to such a doctrine in this place.
  Is it seriously imagined that, by waiting for pronouncements from foreign parts, widespread support or acceptance is more likely to be obtained? Far from it—it is far more likely that the Nationalist minority in Ulster will simply be used as latter-day Sudeten Germans and become pawns of power-hungry southern politicians. While this farce is being played out, the murder campaign is being permitted and even encouraged to continue. Necessary measures are refused in the belief that some cobbled-together solution will end the violence. I have often demonstrated that no fanciful institution or structure will stop the slaughter.
  In case the House questions my judgment or objectivity, I call in aid an Irish Republic police officer who is reported in The Irish Times of 4 April 1984 as telling a conference of Garda officers the plain truth. He said:
  "'Those who claim that a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will bring an end to violence on this island are living in a dreamland. Such a solution, if it brings about a united Ireland, will not stop the violence — it will simply displace it. The IRA and the INLA will direct their full attention to the destruction of our fledgling democracy — a project which they have already begun.
  'These men have one cause and one cause only — to establish their own dictatorship on this island. It is with this in mind that we should be planning our strategy for their defeat. We need to look at our security strategy as a long-term one rather than as a temporary or emergency measure."
  Political parties in Dublin know very well the truth of that statement. They know that, even if the Government and Parliament were to deprive the Ulster people of their right of self-determination — the right to withhold consent to Irish unity—the IRA and its allies would promptly widen the scope of their campaign of murder. For political ends, Dublin politicians will not publicly admit that truth. In the words of that Garda representative, there is a grim warning, but there is also a clear signal which the Government would do well to heed. The Government would do particularly well to heed his words:
  "It is with this in mind that we should be planning our strategy for their defeat."
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said in the House that he is in no doubt about what that strategy should be—a clear recognition that there will not be a united Ireland in the foreseeable future. Once that is clearly understood, the foundations will have been laid for a period of stability, which will deprive terrorists of their feeding ground.
  The second prong of our strategy must be to improve the quality of government in Northern Ireland through many of the ways open to this Government. Parliament, to which Northern Ireland Ministers are answerable, has a duty to advise them to stop looking over their shoulders and to get on with the task of governing my part of the United Kingdom.
  I have never believed that this House would deprive of their rights those who are represented here. On the eve of Easter, I want the Government to give a reassurance that there will be no question of the Government plunging into yet another ill-fated initiative of the type they had resolved five years ago to desist from. I seek a reasonable assurance
  1214
  that the Government will hold to that cause through all the razzamatazz and the deluge of propaganda in the coming weeks.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Tim Eggar: I draw to the attention of the House a matter that should be discussed before the recess. It came to my attention within the past 48 hours, by the courtesy, I suspect, of a member of the GLC staff. Two days ago, I received in the post copies of internal staff notices that had been prepared by the director of the GLC mechanical and electrical engineering division, Mr. D. J. Payne. The particular document that interests me was headed "Anti-Abolition" which was apparently sent out on 16 March to members of that department. In brief, the document refers to a letter sent out by the director-general of the GLC to all staff employees asking them to collect signatures against the introduction of the GLC paving Bill into the House. I believe that that letter from the director-general using, as it does, GLC paper and taking up GLC staff time is bad enough, but Mr. Payne, plainly taking his cue from the director-general, in his departmental notice goes rather further. It starts by referring to the director-general's letter and states:
  "The main purpose of this note is therefore to encourage staff to support the petition"—
  that is, the Bill petition—
  "by obtaining signatures and by offering your services in any other way possible either"—
  these are the key words—
  "during normal working hours or in the evenings or at weekends. So far as working days are concerned, line managers will give sympathetic consideration to the release of their staff from normal duties and, indeed, I hope that line managers will themselves be amongst the volunteers."
  Such a note to paid public servants is unacceptable, for three reasons. First, it has long been accepted that Government employees should perform a completely nonpolitical role at work, and it is considered right that they should be subject to strict rules about their political involvement outside working hours.
  The notice instructs GLC employees to take part in politics at work, paid for by London ratepayers. That is unacceptable. Secondly, the note is unacceptable because it offends against an important tradition of public life—that the use of public funds should and can be accounted for.
  In this note employees are urged to take paid time to collect signatures. There is no maximum amount of time laid down under the terms of the note. In other words, if an employee wanted to take three weeks off to collect signatures there is nothing in the note to restrict it, nor is there any requirement to account for the way in which the time off has been spent. There is no need even to produce a number of signatures which have been collected during working hours. The note is unacceptable on the grounds of public accountability.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has just said that the note refers to paid time off? Or does it refer to paid leave? There is a big difference between the two.
  I had been given notice that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise this matter, and I took the opportunity to find out more about it. As I understand it—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—is not the purpose of the note to prevent staff from believing that they can take paid

  1215
  time off; and that, if they were going to take any time off, it should be within their paid leave entitlement? There is a distinction.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious and doubtless well-briefed by the many political hacks who work for him in the GLC. That is not what the note says. Let me read it again, since he clearly was not paying attention. It says:
  "The main purpose of this note is therefore to encourage staff to support the petition by obtaining signatures and by offering your services in any other way possible, either during normal working hours or in the evenings or at weekends. So far as working days are concerned, line managers will give sympathetic consideration to the release of their staff from normal duties".
  It is clear that paid time off is being contemplated.
  The hon. Gentleman has been tipped off, presumably as a result of a telephone inquiry made by the press this afternoon direct to the GLC press department. It is my understanding that the powers that be at the GLC and its press department are appalled by the fact that this document has been leaked and made available not just to me but to other Members of Parliament, because the GLC realises the damage that this type of thing can do.
  I can only hope that Mr. Payne did not realise the implications of his action and that neither the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) nor any other Labour Member or member of the Labour GLC administration has given any instructions of that kind. I hope, too, that Maurice Stonefrost, the director-general, for whom I have great personal respect, was unaware of the note until it was brought to his attention by the press department today. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has done himself and his party no service by raising the point that he did.
  The third reason why I believe that the note is so insidious is that there is the implication that a member of staff of that department will be judged by the way in which he reacts to the director's request to collect signatures both in his own time at weekends and during paid working hours. How will a member of staff feel who looks to the director and line management for future promotion and job opportunities when he knows that the amount of time that he spends collecting signatures will be known by them? In other words, there is pressure on individual members of staff who may be apolitical, Conservative or whatever, to go out and collect signatures on what is undoubtedly a political matter. That is extraordinarily worrying and a clear continuation of the politicisation of staff at county hall.
  Lest it be thought that Mr. Payne suffered a temporary aberration on 16 March, I shall refer to just one of the many other documents that I have from that department. Departmental circular 30/83, circulated in December, refers to a campaign newsletter made available to all council employees. The newsletter encouraged staff members to write to their local newspapers. Mr. Payne then refers to a staff code which apparently makes it clear that no county hall employee may take part in activities such as writing to newspapers. He advises staff members in his department to disregard that staff code provision. He states:
  "I wish to make it clear that staff are permitted to write to the papers in support of the campaign against GLC abolition"—
  those words are underlined—
  "but the Staff Code requirement remains in force so far as any other matters are concerned."
  1216
  The message is clear. A member of the GLC staff is allowed to write to local newspapers opposing the abolition of the GLC but not in favour of abolition because the director has not lifted the constraints of the staff code in any other respect.
  Whatever one's political view of the rights or wrongs of abolition, instructions of that kind to public servants are utterly unacceptable and should be condemned as much by Labour Members as by Conservative Members. I very much hope that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House winds up the debate he will say what the Government intend to do about this gross breach of normal standards by the GLC director concerned and what action the Government believe can be taken.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I wish to return to an issue which I raised with the Leader of the House during our debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At that time I spent a considerable time trying, as unemotionally as possible, to explain the sequence of events that led the Opposition to feel—we still do, and even more so—that it is imperative that the Prime Minister should make a statement on the events surrounding the Oman contract and the alleged possible conflict of interest involved.
  I do not want to go through the detail of events, but I wish to remind the House of the injunction that Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, laid on his Ministers, and which has been the guiding set of rules for the conduct of Ministers ever since. The right hon. Lady has said that she is happy with that set of rules, and feels that they do not need revising.
  In the opening paragraph of his explanation of the notes, Winston Churchill said:
  "It is a principle of public life that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties". —[Official Report, 25 February 1952; Vol. 496, c. 702.]
  He said that not only should it not arise but that it should not even appear to arise. On that basis alone, the events up to the present day require the statement for which I am asking.
  The allegation is that if the Prime Minister was aware of her son's interest in the Oman contract at the time when she was in Oman negotiating with the Oman Administration, she allowed such a conflict of interest to arise. If she was unaware, all she had to do—and all she has to do now—was to say so.
  During Prime Minister's Question Time today, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked the Prime Minister to state categorically — "Yes" or "No"—whether she knew of her son's interest while she was in Oman. Instead of answering "Yes" or "No", as over the last three months, all we got was a flood of evasive words.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a major development took place in the House today? If we look closely at the right hon. Lady's answer, we see that she was effectively blocking the possibility of answering any more questions about aspects of that contract. It was a deliberate ploy to prevent this House from exercising its rights to question her.
  When over the coming weeks my hon. Friends go to the Table Office to table their questions, they will hear repeated reference to the answer given today to my hon.

  1217
  Friend the Member for Fife, Central. It was a deliberate blocking answer which was read by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, and it is a disgrace.
  Mr. Williams: In fact, it is not the only such episode, and this is why concern has mounted on this side of the House. We had a similar performance with a blocking answer given in a recent Sunday Times article, and I drew attention to that in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate.
  On 1 April, in The Mail on Sunday—carefully selected, I assume, because it could be relied on to write the story as required—three pages were devoted to this episode. There was an interview with Mark Thatcher, on the front page and the two centre pages. In the course of this interview, it was said, in relation to the contract:
  "Beneath the surface there were hints that his mother was aware of this"——
  that is, of his interest——
  "all along. About this he is angriest of all. Nothing can blot out his rage."
  Now, if Mark Thatcher felt—as perhaps he does—the anger which was mentioned in that article, one would expect that in the 56 paragraphs that make up the front page and the two centre pages of The Mail on Sunday he would have taken the chance and have vented his anger —which he has every right to do—to deny categorically that his mother was aware of his interest. In fact, one can read all three pages, and nowhere, at any stage, does he make the denial that would end the whole story. Just as the Prime Minister has evaded and dodged and flatly refused to answer the basic, simple question, so did he.
  On the allegation that made him angriest of all we had a smokescreen, we had indignation, we had wrath, but we had no denial. And, as I have said, we had no denial from the Prime Minister at Question Time today.
  Yet, in the next paragraph of the interview, Mark Thatcher said:
  "It has been 12 weeks … Twelve bloody weeks."
  He could have ended that speculation. He had the opportunity there, three pages of opportunity. His mother could have ended the speculation 12 weeks ago and avoided all the anguish and all the worry. It really seems strange that, in this exclusive interview, triggered, it seemed, by his sense of anger and outrage, he overlooked the need to deny the basic charge that is laid against him and his mother in relation to that particular contract.
  If the 12 weeks have been as bloody for Mark Thatcher as he says, perhaps his mother owed it to him to give today at the Dispatch Box the categorical answer for which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked. She, again, only has to say that she was utterly unaware of his involvement and the issue would be dead as far as we are concerned — and it would probably make life a lot easier for her son as well.
  In the Hong Kong Standard dated 17 March there was a series of articles relating to Mark Thatcher's business interests in which there was a quotation from an interview with him in the Ming Pao Weekly—obviously a very widely read journal—in December 1983. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to these words:
  "Mrs. Thatcher's son said his relation with his mother was very close and whatever he did his mother would always give him full support."
  And this is the critical part:
  1218
  "Virtually everything, including his commercial ventures, would be discussed between mother and son, according to the article."
  So we understand, on the basis of this interview, that the probability is that there was an awareness on the part of the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister still refuses to answer straight questions from us. We cannot be blamed if, having asked perfectly straightforward questions to which we get non-answers, evasive answers or blocking answers, we conclude that the right hon. Lady has something to conceal. Failure to speak clashes with that basic injunction in the Churchill guidelines that it is a principle of public life that no conflict appears to arise. The evasion is making the appearance stronger in our minds and in the public mind, and the longer she refuses to rebut the allegation that she was aware of his involvement, the greater the suspicion will be.
  This House has been put into an unprecedented quandary because, unlike the situation of the generality of Ministers, under the Churchill guidelines the Prime Minister is the final arbiter as to what is and is not within those guidelines, which say:
  "in any case of doubt the Prime Minister of the day must be the final judge, and Ministers should submit any such case to him for his direction".—[Official Report, 25 February 1952; Vol. 496, c. 702.]
  But no provision exists for the situation where the Prime Minister is the Minister against whom the allegation of a clash of interests is being made. There is no provision for anyone other than the Prime Minister to be judge in her own case. No provision exists for us or for anyone else adequately to probe what really happened.
  If the right hon. Lady refuses to answer the simple question, "Did she know?", may we be told by the Leader of the House where we, the elected representatives of the people, go next? How do we deal with the situation? There is no procedure for dealing with it while the Prime Minister chooses to stand at the Dispatch Box and say in answer to written questions, "I have nothing further to add" when, clearly, there is something important further to add. It is yes or no—as simple as that—one or the other; either she was or she was not aware.
  Because of the stubborn blocking by the Prime Minister, we must now consider whether the rules on ministerial conduct should be revised, for she has highlighted, and continues to highlight, a great flaw in the structure of the rules. Parliament has a duty to face this issue. A special committee of the House should be established to look into the relevance of, and the need to up-date, the rules on the conduct of Ministers, a committee with the ability to call specialist constitutional experts to ensure that we can up-date the rules and so make sure that no Minister, and no Prime Minister, can place himself or herself above the rules.
  We are constantly lectured by the Prime Minister about other people having to obey rules. It seems that rules exist for everybody except the Prime Minister. It is bad for politics and for the institution of Parliament if niggling doubts are allowed to linger. It is no good the Government and the Conservative press attacking Opposition Members for asking what it is their right and duty to ask. It is certainly not the duty of the Opposition to enter into a conspiracy to pretend that there is no issue and no problem. We will not pretend that a problem does not exist, and Conservative Members will not be able much longer to pretend that a problem does not exist.

  1219
  The question that we are asking is not unreasonable. It is justified under Churchill's criteria. I repeat: Did the Prime Minister know about her son's involvement in the potential Oman contract when she was in Oman, as all evidence, all logic, suggests that she probably did? She owes it to him, to herself, to Parliament and to the integrity of the rules governing the conduct of Ministers to say whether she did or did not know. She cannot continue arrogantly to brush aside this critical issue. The more she prevaricates, the more she dodges, the more she fuels suspicion and the more she damages the image of public life. For that reason, we want and expect to have a statement from the Prime Minister before the House goes into recess.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: If I may move to a more topical burning issue, I was hoping that before the House adjourned for the Easter recess we would know the fate of the Elgin marbles. It is some five months since the Greek Government's request for their return was received. We all know what the reply would have been in the unlikely event of the Leader of the Opposition being Prime Minister. He said—not here but in Athens, after what The Times described as a prolonged taverna dinner —that a British Labour Government would give them back. Whether that was in pursuit of cultural unity or to further the cause of international Socialism he did not make plain at the time. I suspect that his attitude would have been completely different had the request come from a Greek military Government.
  It is certainly in complete contrast to the reply given by a predecessor of his, the then Harold Wilson, when, as Prime Minister in 1965 he told the House that he did not propose to introduce legislation to require the trustees of the British Museum to return the marbles, thus repeating the view of a predecessor of his, Clement Attlee, who told the House the very same thing in 1941, and, apparently, a predecessor of his, Ramsay Macdonald when approached by Harold Nicholson on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Lord Byron in 1924. That is one, and only one, consistency with past Labour leaders which I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to repeat in his reply tonight.
  Although the current debate should not, in my view, be concerned with how the Parthenon marbles came to be in the British Museum, inevitably it is. It would be right to remind ourselves that but for Lord Elgin there would be no Parthenon marbles today. He saved them from an uncertain fate at the hands of stone robbers, lime burners, curio hunters, religious iconoclasts, and, more recently, Athens smog. He acquired them legally. He paid for them and exported them with the full consent of the legal Ottoman Government. Contrary to what the Greek Ministry of Culture and Education would have us believe in a recent leaflet published in the name of its committee for the return of the Acropolis marbles, none of them was lost at sea during the shipment to Britain.
  As the House will recall, in 1816, following a Select Committee report, the House of Commons voted by 82 to 30 to purchase the marbles from Lord Elgin for the sum of £35,000, which is half the price that he paid for them and they have been carefully preserved in the British Museum ever since, inspiring the reintroduction of classical architecture to Victorian Britain, playing an international role in the understanding and appreciation of
  1220
  antiquity, and revolutionising the fine and decorative arts in an unparalleled way, all of which the Greek Government would do well to acknowledge in their request for their return.
  There is nothing here of which we as a nation should feel guilty in any way. There appear to be certain misunderstandings about the exact nature of the request from the Greek Government. At the UNESCO world conference on cultural policies in Mexico in 1982. which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was the Minister for the Arts, the recommendation submitted by Greece which was adopted by the conference said:
  "Considering that the removal of the so-called Elgin marbles from their place in the Parthenon had disfigured a unique monument which is a symbol of eternal significance for the Greek people and for the whole world, considering it right and just that those marbles should be returned to Greece, the country in which they were created, for reincorporation in the architectural structure of which they formed part, recommends that Member States view the return of the parthenon marbles as an instance of application of the principle that elements abstracted from national monuments should be returned to those monuments".
  The understanding from that resolution is surely that the marbles would be re-integrated into the parthenon, in situ. Miss Melina Mercouri herself confirmed:
  "it is now time for the Acropolis Marbles to return to their natural environment under the blue sky of Attica".
  That is not what the Greek Government have in mind. These important sculptures would be transferred from one of the pre-eminent museums of the world — an internationally acknowledged source of knowledge and inspiration which is open seven days a week, free of charge, and attracts more than 3 million visitors a year —to a museum which has yet to be built, in a country where tour operators complain that the opening of museums and historical sites is becoming more and more unpredictable and where many tourists are disappointed by not being able to see the relics that they travel there to see.
  Moreover, to accede to that request would set a precedent that was wholly unacceptable. There might be demands for the Mona Lisa to be returned to Italy, the impressionists to France, the Venus de Milo and the winged victory to Greece, the bronze horses of St. Mark's to Turkey or perhaps Greece, and the Rosetta stone and perhaps Queen Nefertiti to Egypt. Whole museums might be emptied of their most valued exhibits and we would see an end to the unity of European culture.
  The request is unacceptable for that reason alone, but it is also not credible. Why do the Greek Government not seek the return of all the other Parthenon marbles from the nine museums in six countries between which they are divided — France, Germany, Denmark, Vatican City, Italy and Austria — as well as those in the British Museum?
  There is the strongest possible case for Europe's cultural heritage remaining where all Europeans have easy access to it, and for the great international collections such as that in the British Museum remaining where they are. That view was supported by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as recently as last October.
  We should not be wholly negative in our reply to the Greek Government. Our response to the present ambitious and comprehensive 15-year programme to conserve and restore the principal monuments on the Acropolis has been nothing but helpful. When I went to the British Museum yesterday I learned that it has supplied a number of plaster

  1221
  and fibre-glass casts of sculptures, including one of the caryatids from the Erechtheion, to replace originals which are now in the Athens museum.
  After the rhetoric has died down, there is no reason why the Greeks should not apply their own precedents and replace the Elgin marbles with replicas, taken from the originals, which should remain in the British Museum. That is a civilised solution which Pericles himself would have approved.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I am sometimes disturbed when I listen to Conservative Members, who are more worried about marbles than the rights and freedoms of their constituents. I am not exaggerating when I say that there is a need for the House to abandon any idea of an Easter recess as the fabric of society as we know it is being torn apart. Right hon. and hon. Members should stop and ponder on the disruption that is occurring throughout the country.
  For the past three weeks the majority of miners have been on strike to keep their industry and to protect their jobs and the right to work. What more loyal British subjects can there be than the British miner, whether in peace or war? On 1 September last year, only seven months ago, tragedy struck the industry when Ian MacGregor was appointed the chairman of the National Coal Board, with the approval of No. 10. Some of us experienced his massive butchery in the steel industry, from which he threw thousands of people out of work. We spelt out the dangers when he was appointed. We forecast what would happen. The Prime Minister was well aware of what would happen in the mining industry as a result of his appointment. I must admit that I thought that it would take much longer than seven months to create the present conflict. He must have been spurred on by the grocer's daughter and the size of the police force, as the police complement his and the Government's attitude to the miners, especially because they caused the Conservatives' defeat in 1974.
  We should consider what has happened in the five years of Conservative rule to miners, steel workers, local government workers, railwaymen, shop workers, civil servants—the list is endless. Only then do we realise how tolerant, passive and mediocre the Trades Union Congress has been with this brutal and blatant bludgeoning of its reasonable and lawful protection. It is time that it made a stand to protect what little is left. I warn that the bastions of the trade union movement are under the severest attack from the most ruthless 72-year-old American Scot that ever God put breath into, if indeed it was God who put breath into him. He accuses Arthur Scargill of engineering a political strike.
  Last night Mr. MacGregor attended a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary group. I asked whether he thought his was a political appointment, and he refused to reply. We all know that his transfer from the British Steel Corporation to the NCB was a blatantly political act by this mistress of Machiavellian political chicanery. He has written an article in The Standard tonight in an attempt to defend his seven months of management. The article refers to conflict and deception. I recommend it to the House.
  By what blatant hypocrisy does Mr. MacGregor conclude that the out-of-work steel workers—there are
  1222
  thousands all over the country because of him—do not remember what happened to their industry? Is it any wonder that the spokesman for the steel union cringes at the signs of conflict when, under the MacGregor axe, he watched his union crumble to insignificance? All of that has happened because of MacGregor, and if, as he told us last night, his remit from No. 10 is to make the coal industry profitable, to provide cheaper coal for industry, why is it that 122 pits are not producing an ounce of coal and have not been producing an ounce of coal for the past three weeks?
  Why is it that there is total conflict in the industry? Is this carrying out the remit that Mr. MacGregor was given from 10 Downing Street? Is this carrying out a remit which has cost the taxpayer £1·5 million by way of compensation to Mr. MacGregor's company for the loss of his services? Or was his remit really to smash the miners, to smash the National Union of Mineworkers, to smash Scargill, as he had smashed Bill Sirs? That would be nearer the truth than that which he has led us to believe, because there is nothing to substantiate the idea of any initiative by the Government to cut industry's energy charges. Indeed, the Government have deliberately increased industry's energy costs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) opened the debate by highlighting the frightening policing in parts of this country and the erosion of freedom. I intend to make a few further points on this. This morning, at the invitation of the president and vice-president of the miners of south Wales, I travelled to Margam to witness the conflict there between police and pickets. I saw action taken by the police which one would expect to see only in a country under a dictatorship, where freedom and democracy had been removed years before. I saw young lads handled like cattle to be slaughtered. I saw 30 arrests made, some selected at random for no just or reasonable cause. I shall not go into the details, because most of those arrested are still subject to further police and court action.
  However, I can assure the House that the actions of the police were in no way similar to those that I have witnessed or experienced at any other picket line. I wonder what instructions were given by the Home Secretary when he recently met chief constables. I have been told, not once, but many times, that people travelling to work to go about their normal business have been stopped and ordered out of their cars for no apparent reason other than that the police have decided to stop and question them.
  We were told only yesterday of the attitude of the police to the peace-loving women of Greenham common. This country is rapidly becoming a police state, where the miner, the railway worker, the shopworker and the civil servant, together with all other trade unionists, will have no rights left, where the housewife and the citizen will have no freedom and where the police will be feared rather than respected.
  I ask the House, therefore, in the name of justice, democracy and individual freedom to resolve these matters before we adjourn for any recess.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: Different issues at this time concern different Members of the House to different degrees. I accept that the hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are concerned about the question of police powers. My hon.

  1223
  Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition, are concerned about the loss of certain marbles.
  A matter which causes me some concern, however, is much nearer home and affects the lives of those whom I am honoured to represent in this place. Derby, as I am sure the House knows, is one of Britain's principal railway cities and we are set, we are told, to get a new railway station — that is, unless current plans are changed. British Rail apparently intends to demolish the existing station at Derby and to construct a new building at a cost of some £3·5 million. The new station, we are told, will be a showpiece for the city of Derby.
  Those of us who have seen an artist's impression of what the new station will look like are more of the opinion that it is going to look like a supermarket, totally out of place in, and unworthy of, its setting in the middle of a conservation area. In Derby a strong and worthy campaign has been waged to save the present station, with its imposing facade over 1,000 ft long, designed by Charles Trubshaw and completed in 1892, although parts of the station go back to an earlier date.
  The cost of repair and rehabilitation of the station—it is accepted that it needs some repair—would cost much less than the estimated replacement cost of £3·5 million. Those who support the retention of the existing station are not a handful of crank objectors but number the "Country Life" magazine. I shall quote briefly from an article which appeared in the edition of 18 September 1983 which was written by Marcus Binney and entitled "Crunch Time at Derby." The article states:
  "There are good reasons to be angry about Derby Station. Angry, first, with British Rail for determining to press ahead with demolition and rebuilding even though no detailed study has been made of the cost and practicality of repairing the existing station, … though more recently the highly successful Derbyshire Historic Buildings Trust has offered to take on and refurbish all surplus parts of the station and find tenants for them. Angry, secondly, with the Department of the environment for steadfastly refusing to list the station which still vividly reflects the growth and work of one of the great Victorian railway companies. Angry, thirdly, with Derby City Council for granting permission to demolish the focal point of the Railway Conservation Area it designated in March, 1980."
  I agree with every word of that article.
  An objection has been raised also by the Derby Civic Society. In September 1983 a representative of the society, Peter Billson said:
  "Our Society have had a long fight for this significant area in the City, from way back in early 1978. Through our endeavours we succeeded in effecting the retention and rehabilitation of the Railway Houses and the Brunswick Inn rehabilitation … the creation of the Railway Conservation Area, the Listing of the Railway Houses and the Midland Hotel. We are convinced that the Station building should be rehabilitatied and conserved as a vital and central element of this Conservation Area."
  Thirdly, a renowned and respected architect who has knowledge of this issue commented in 1982:
  "The station building is possibly a more complex problem. My view is that although it is an amalgam of building over a 50 year period last century, nevertheless that does not invalidate an argument for retention and rehabilitation. Derby desperately needs an improved station; but demolition and replacement is not the only answer. Quite apart from historical grounds and the strong contribution to the street scene by the existing building; there is also a very good argument that alterations and rehabilitation would be more economical. British Rail ought to have looked at this but their architects conceded to me that they had never had a brief to do so, only to produce a new station."
  I agree also with every word of that commentary.
  1224
  Sadly, British Rail's narrowmindedness appears to have found a companion in the judgment, which I regard as a judgment of error, of the Department of the Environment. In November 1983 in a letter to me it was stated:
  "My Department has considered a number of requests to spot list the station since British Rail's proposals for it were first mooted. As … the Derby Civic Society has already been told a special inspection of the area was carried out by my Department's professional Inspectorate of Historic Buildings in June, 1980. Their conclusion then, which was endorsed by Ministers, was that the station did not merit listing."
  The Derby Evening Telegraph, which often has its finger on the hub of an issue, commented on 16 August:
  "It is a pity then that British Rail planners cannot see how a rejuvenated station along similar lines to the railway cottages would be of great benefit to us all rather than the modern monolith they are proposing."
  Many of us in Derby sympathise and agree with that comment. I accept that Derby's history did not begin with the coming of the railway, but during the 19th century Derby became a far more important industrial centre because of the presence of the Midland railway companies. By 1801 its population was in excess of 11,000. Within the following 40 years it had trebled. Derby was the sort of town that attracted the early railway pioneers.
  At one stage prior to 1844 Derby was served by three separate railway companies. It could easily have ended up with three stations, as some cities did, but that was not the case. The Midland Railway, one of the first great railway companies, was formed in 1844 by an amalgamation of the three railway companies. The amalgamation was a wise move which produced a network of 180 miles of track. Derby itself was served by this one station. The station, designed by Charles Trubshaw, expresses the confidence in and affluence of the Midland Railway. It is an irreplaceable monument in a city if not virtually created by railways then certainly buoyed along by railways during the latter part of the last century.
  I accept that the railway station is in a poor state. It is amazing how, after years of neglect of the station, British Rail is claiming that it wishes to have a showpiece station in Derby. It is a pity that in earlier years British Rail did not take a similar view and expend moderate sums of money on the station to keep it in a decent condition.
  Before we adjourn for the Easter recess I hope there is a change of heart not only by British Rail but by the Department of the Environment. If British Rail does not change its plans to demolish the station I hope that those in the Department who are responsible for taking decisions will think again and decide to spotlist this building which could be a greater credit to the city of Derby.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We ought to debate quite a number of things before the Easter recess because there are always matters that need to be debated. One of the things that should have been debated today of all days, after what occurred at Prime Minister's Question Time, was the action of a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). Surely he should have presented himself here tonight and used this opportunity to explain precisely what the game was all about in 1976 when he was signing the authorisation for sub-machine guns for the police and not even telling the Prime Minister at the time.

  1225
  We all know that the right hon. Gentleman had a lot of things on his mind then. He was in the process of getting involved in that superstructure that is now busily collapsing — the Common Market. He was looking forward to getting that big fat pension that he got out of the Common Market or, more strictly, out of the British taxpayers. While he was engaged in that activity, looking after his after-life, he signed the authorisation to give submachine guns to the police but never told the then Prime Minister about it. We have heard about the Prime Minister's defaults in an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), but the action of the right hon. Member for Hillhead takes some beating.
  There is another thing about the right hon. Member that people should understand. At that time and for many years he was talked about in the media and in clever newspaper articles as the great libertarian of his day; he was the man who brought forth all the wonderful liberalising measures in the House of Commons. How he loved to stroke that Dispatch Box; he was never away from it. Then when he came back as an SDP Member he wanted this place on the Bench. Is this the man who is supposed to have signed a document authorising the provision of sub-machine guns for the police—the right hon. Member for Hillhead, the exposed Home Secretary? Never. He should have come here tonight. It may be that it escaped his notice that there was a three-hour debate today starting after ten o'clock. Of course it is not a decent hour for somebody who is living on claret. I do not know when one drinks it, but I assume that it is the claret hour. He had a duty to come here. That is one of the things that should have been debated, albeit for a short time.
  We should have debated, as we did on another occasion, so I shall not at this late hour, the international banking system. I have been reading about it today and it looks as though it is rearing its ugly head again. I see that they cobbled together a little deal at the weekend for Argentina—$500 million. What did they do? To save the banks—not Argentina—they went along to Brazil, which is the biggest debtor in the world and said, "Look here" —this is America talking, with some help from Her Majesty's Government—"if we give you, Brazil, a bit of money, and give you Mexico, a bit of money, will you take part in a consortium to lend over $500 million to Argentina, because it is due to break the IMF deadline at the weekend?" Lloyds Bank came in at the last minute and chucked in a few coppers. Did it do it to save the Argentines? No, to save themselves, so that the Argentines and the British, and the rest, those that create the wealth, can be bailed out.
  That is one of the reasons why the interest rates went up again today in the United States. They are having one hell of a job to hang on until the election. That is twice in the past few weeks that they have pushed interest rates up, and with a $184 billion deficit. We shall hear more about that, but I shall not talk about it tonight because there will be other opportunities.
  I shall refer briefly to one or two things in the coal mining industry, and it would be wrong of me not to do so. In the past three weeks, we have clamoured for a debate on the coal mining dispute, and the police activity associated with it.
  Mr. Eggar: Opposition Front-Bench Members have not.
  Mr. Skinner: I cannot answer for them. I have been trying to tell the Front Bench of the Labour party about the Common Market — I think that I am succeeding. I thought that it was a folly to start trotting out these statements. In coded language, it is true that we have "shifted our ground" on the Common Market, just at the moment when it is shuddering to a halt. I had to do a bit of talking in other places to make sure that the Front Bench understands that at this moment, when the British people are changing.
  In the poll that the LBC held the other night, some 70 per cent. said they were against the Common Market, and that is just the people with telephones — what about those who do not have them? That issue is an important one, and one about which my Front Bench is beginning to learn. On the other issue, they will have to wait. For what it is worth, I have been telling them within the confines of the parliamentary Labour party for the past three weeks——
  Mr. Winnick: Don't say that.
  Mr. Skinner: I was not sent here to keep my mouth shut, but to speak my mind, and to speak on behalf of my class. I do not have to take into account what some people do when they say, "Ah, but it is too sensitive. This is a very difficult thing, there is a yes and a no to it. If one looks at it from one angle or the other, it is difficult and we cannot sell it in a nice cosy package." Politics is not about that and neither is life. It is not about finding a cosy way out but about having to make up one's mind about the issues that present themselves, and on each day that passes, uncomfortable decisions have to be made
  On the decisions about the miners, our side should be backing them up to the hilt. Those miners in Nottinghamshire should be joining the 80 per cent. that are out on strike, fighting for the right to work, even though——
  Mr. Eggar rose——
  Mr. Skinner: I have answered the hon. Gentleman once—what does he want, jam on it?
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is as courteous as ever. Would he like to expand a little and tell us what view of the Leader of the Opposition was upstairs in the Committee room? Did he accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, or reject it?
  Mr. Winnick: Do not be mischievous.
  Mr. Eggar: What was the message that the Leader of the Opposition gave to the members of the parliamentary Labour party?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tell him to mind his own business.
  Mr. Skinner: The message will be clear next week. There has been a bit of jiggery—pokery between the Front-Benchers and the Speaker—I do not know to what extent Mr. Speaker has had his elbow nudged. There should have been a debate before now. It might have been unnecessary for hon. Members to refer to this subject tonight, although I do not doubt that some of us would have done so anyway.
  Reference has been made to Mr. MacGregor, who has written in The Standard. He had the gall to talk about the

  1227
  "cruel deceit" practised by the National Union of Mineworkers. If anybody is guilty of cruel deceit and lying, it is Mr. MacGregor. He has a long record of lying, not only in this country but about the company he ran in America. He lied about the fact that there was no hit list of pit closures.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is De Lorean.
  Mr. Skinner: I did not want to deal with him on this occasion. Mr. MacGregor said that the NCB did not have a hit list. He lied, as did his predecessor, Siddall. We now all know that there is a hit list. They lied about the Cortonwood closure. At a Yorkshire pit that they closed — my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West knows more about this matter than I do, because it occurred just a hop, step and a jump from where he lives —they said "Go on. Get to Cortonwood. How old are you, Jack? Fifty years old? All right, there are at least five years life at Cortonwood." Within a few weeks, the liar MacGregor, along with others in the NCB in Yorkshire, closed Cortonwood. That was a deliberately provocative act. People should understand that that was one of the reasons why the NUM introduced the closure notices. Mr. MacGregor lied about Cortonwood being a receiving pit for at least five years. Mr. MacGregor lied also about the effects of the overtime ban. That ban had not been operating for more than a few weeks when Mr. MacGregor went on the media claiming that the overtime ban was saving the NCB money. Some people say, "Maybe he did not lie. Maybe he was naive. Maybe he was thick." I do not believe that. He was telling the British establishment through the press and television, "We need to stop these miners earning overtime. It is crippling the NCB." He told a fairy story, saying that the measure was saving money. He said, "It can go on forever for all I care."
  By the turn of the new year, the NCB accountants were proving to the Government that the board would need much more money to survive. Only a few weeks ago, an order was brought before the House calling for about £200 million to balance the books—half was needed because the overtime ban was crippling the NCB's accounts.
  North Derbyshire appeared to be about to have a £20 million profit until the overtime ban was imposed. At the end of the financial year, the area was due to suffer a £20 million loss. That is lying on a large scale to frighten the miners into not fighting for their jobs. Mr. MacGregor should be dispatched back to Amax Inc. to pick up the pieces he left over there. He was talked about as a great financial whiz-kid when he ran that giant American company. He was brought over here to smash the steel industry, and subsequently he started into the coal industry on the basis that he had some special talents.
  The Financial Times of 29 March 1983, writing of Mr. MacGregor's wonderful exercise at Amax, stated:
  "Amax is now in full scale retreat. The company reported a net loss of $390m for 1982. …
  Analysts who treated him with adulatory respect during the good years now grumble that he expanded too fast and diversified too far. He is also criticised for the shortcomings of his successors, who for the most part were put in place by his regime."
  That is the man who has been sent to smash the coal industry. What a wonderful record he has.
  The NCB is lying about coal stocks. Many power stations do not have more than two or three weeks of coal.
  1228
  If the railwaymen and transport workers combine effectively as they did in 1972 and 1974, the coal will run out in at those power stations ere long.
  Mr. MacGregor will leave a trail of destruction when he leaves the NCB. He is just in it for short-term gains, the glory and the one and a half million quid he will no doubt shove into his back pocket when he gets back to America. Handing over that money was nothing but one of those great tax fiddles which were operating across the Irish sea when Mr. De Lorean received similar sums of money on a different occasion.
  When the Notts miners voted as they did today—I do not run away from it, some of them are my constituents, because I am not cushioned in a Yorkshire coalfield, where all the miners are on strike—I could have buried my head and thought, "Some are striking and some are not." I believe that the Notts miners will regret their action if it lasts for too long. We cannot be sure, because some Nottinghamshire pits are lined up for closure by Mr. MacGregor, backed by the Government. Although the NCB has tried to hide the fact it is ready to shut them, some of the people in the Notts area know the names—Pye Hill 1, Pye Hill 2, and Moorgreen with one or two more to follow. [Interruption.] Someone said, "Nearly worked out." I suppose Conservative Members are nearly worked out running about having their arms twisted signing that motion on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Whips have raced after 270-odd Conservative Members. It has been an appalling spectacle as they tried to get 270-odd names on a motion saying that the Prime Minister has nothing to fear about Oman. It is interesting——
  Mr. Nicholas Soames rose——
  Mr. Skinner: I expect the hon. Gentleman signed it among the 270-odd, and the Prime Minister talks about a national ballot for the miners. Despite all the arm twisting, the Whips do not have more than 70 per cent. of the Tory Members of Parliament to back the Prime Minister. At least we can claim that 80 per cent. of the miners are out on strike.
  Mr. Soames rose——
  Mr. Skinner: Go on then.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  With his great knowledge of mining will he tell us why the miners are not to be afforded the opportunity to express, as one body, their views on whether they should be on strike? Why are they not being allowed to have a national ballot?
  Mr. Skinner: For the simple reason that the national executive, including members from Nottingham, met a month ago and agreed unanimously to take that course of action.
  The Tories have a cheek to talk about ballots. This is the same Government who have been to the Leader of the House to bring before the House next week a Bill to abolish elections, not just in London but for several million people in the metropolitan areas. They have the cheek to say that they are worried about ballots when they are abolishing people's freedom to go to the polling booth and cast a vote in favour of someone they want to represent them on the local authority. Perhaps they should have had a ballot on GCHQ. They should have had a ballot on whether Mr. MacGregor should get £1·5 million, or on whether the chairman of the Tory party should receive an

  1229
  extra £5,000 a year of taxpayers' money to carry out a tin-pot job on behalf of the Prime Minister—that is £100 a week of taxpayers' money. Where did they find that money? We keep hearing from the Dispatch Box that they do not have money, but they found it for him, although he does not have to do any extra work for it.
  The Government constantly talk about law and order and say that we are short of policemen to stop the increasing crime rate. We heard today that robberies have increased by 50 per cent. since the Government came to power. Yet the Government can find 10,000 policemen immediately to sent to the midlands, and can pay them £85 a day for the nightshift alone. They can find plenty of money when they want to curb the freedom of people who are fighting for their right to work. That is why I have written to Derbyshire county council asking why my constituents—miners and everyone else—should have to pay this massive bill for allowing the police to come to the midlands. I hope that the council will not pay the bill.
  Many of my constituents, and people from Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, are saying that the police are carrying out a political act when they try to curb the freedom of NUM members. There were reports today of some policemen in plain clothes wearing NUM badges acting like the Gestapo, listening to the conversations of pickets and then instructing snatch squads to pick them out. At Shirebrook in my constituency the police tried to bus through a handful of miners, not to turn coal but just to take part in strike-breaking. They got together a few miners, not outside the pit gates but further away, put blankets over their heads, shoved them on the bus and then took them through the picket line. That is strike-breaking. About 1,800 men work at that pit——
  Mr. Ray Powell: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the phones of some striking miners have been tapped—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to find out what action the miners are taking? Has he received information from miners in his area about this phone-tapping of pickets?
  Mr. Skinner: There is no question but that phone-tapping occurs in every major industrial dispute. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) recalls what happened at Stocksbridge, where it was proved that a phone had been tapped during a strike to save the steel industry from MacGregor's butchery.
  At Shirebrook the police gathered together about a dozen miners and bussed them through the picket line, not to turn coal but just so that the police can say to the coal board, "We are helping to drive a thin wedge through." In other words, they are strike-breaking. That is a political act by the police force. Not only are the Government happy for that to happen, but they are guiding the police along the way.
  I was on the Bolsover picket line at 12.15 pm on Friday 30 March— [HON. MEMBERS: "Secondary picketing."] Yes, secondary picketing, and I was proud to take part in it. At 12.15 pm one young Bolsover lad shouted, "Scab," to another one in the yard. He was arrested, despite protests from me and everyone else, by the Derbyshire constabulary —not not policemen from outside. I suppose that he will have to pay the penalty—at 23 years of age — for calling someone a scab. It is a sorry state of affairs when people cannot use words like that when they
  1230
  feel so strongly about someone who has crossed the picket line. The Leader of the House may laugh, but I was there. I saw it all and heard it all and I have put down everything that I saw.
  I remember another incident a few years ago when the Labour Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), went to address a Police Federation do. The police were angry with him. It was an industrial argument and they did not like what he was doing about one thing and another. Members of the Police Federation, which I suppose might loosely be described as a trade union, decided without any let or hindrance—no one to stop them at the Dartford tunnel or on the county borders of Yorkshire, Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire—to stand outside that big meeting just like pickets and they nearly smashed his car in. That was on television for millions to see, but there were no charges of breach of the peace for those people. The police could get off scot free, and when they act on the Prime Minister's instructions as part of her political army—she is treating this battle as though she were fighting the Argentines—they can get away with murder.
  I had a report from NUM headquarters today saying that the police have now placed road blocks on all major roads leading out of Yorkshire, stopping miners leaving the county, that the police are informing miners that their car insurance is not valid for passengers travelling to picket, and that magistrates are beginning to state as a condition of bail that miners must agree to picket only their own place of work. Those conditions of bail are now being superseded by instructions not to visit any places or premises other than their own place of work or any other premises associated with the coal industry, and not to picket at any time any premises or place of business or industry.
  All that is supposed to be in the name of freedom. If those conditions had been announced in Poland when Lech Walesa was organising the massive campaign there, what would the Tory press have said? What did the Tories say when similar incindents took place? More than 500 pickets have already been arrested just fighting for the right to work. That is the hyprocisy of the Tory Government. They were elected in 1983 on arguments about freedom.
  Mr. Jim Lester: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that if he were an elected member of the Polish Assembly he would not have the right to speak as he is now speaking?
  Mr. Skinner: The way this country is going, they will stop it here as well if they get half a chance. I am quite serious about that, given the developments that I have seen in the past few years and the way in which the Government have been curbing civil liberties. The freedom to work has been taken away from between 4 million and 5 million people, depending which set of statistics one takes. In large areas of Derbyshire, most of Nottinghamshire and parts of Yorkshire, the freedom to travel has been taken away. Now people cannot even use the word that so aptly describes those who cross picket lines, so the Government are now putting a bar on the freedom of speech. All that has happened in the space of a few weeks.
  It is said that every cloud has a silver lining. At least this strike will have shown the British nation—those who want to listen, not that lot on the Tory Benches—just how fast the Government have moved in taking away freedoms from the British people.

  1231
  The Government have not done it for everybody—for people such as Eddie Shah. He has the freedom to break the law and to get away with it. He has not filed his accounts, not only for 1983 but for 1982 and 1979. On three occasions Eddie Shah has broken the law by not complying with section 1 of the Companies Act and sending in the accounts of the Messenger Newspaper Group Ltd. He happens to be a friend of the Prime Minister. They had a tete-a-tete just after the Blackpool conference, when I suppose together they conspired to bring about further limitation on picketing at the Warrington works later that year. There is freedom for Eddie Shah to break the law, but in this dispute the miners are treated like aliens in their own country.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The House will understand if I feel that the next few minutes will be like after the Lord Mayor's show. I bow to the eloquence — even violence — of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but in many ways I am glad that he is over the border in another county.
  Tonight I wish to speak for Nottinghamshire, and I am grateful to all the citizens there. They are a most sensible people, and perhaps they are also grateful that the hon. Member for Bolsover is over the border in another county.
  Last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services issued a document to health authorities about a scrutiny programme on ambulance services. It so happens that the service in Nottinghamshire had already taken on board much of the substance of that investigation. The concern that I draw to the attention of the House is that somehow the suggestion in the Minister's letter would diminish the quality of the service and provide what the local press described as a "two-tier system" of ambulance service—a kind of first and second-class service—with the primary purpose of saving money.
  The local press rightly drew attention to that concern. That is its right and proper function, because it was feared that saving money might, possibly by diminishing that service, bring distress and danger to the citizens of Nottinghamshire. Six cases have been reported to the press, whose content was most disturbing. I shall not trouble the House with the details, but, by putting two and two together and making five, it was suggested that the new system must be to blame.
  Happily, my Nottinghamshire colleagues took the opportunity of the spotlight that the press had switched on to look into the matter. While in no way diminishing the seriousness of the cases that have been reported, it was against the background of the totality of the service provided that, with a clear conscience, we felt able to pay tribute to all the staff of the county's ambulance service.
  The Nottingham service has a staff of 400, who each and every day of the year respond to about 120 accident and emergency calls. Each and every day they carry out about 1,700 non-emergency passenger journeys. The former function is a cover awaiting call at any time, day or night, responding to 999 calls. We were in the main station when that telephone rang, and two minutes elapsed between the first ring and the report of an ambulance leaving the nearest station. Within eight minutes the radio had confirmed that it had arrived at the scene of the accident, somewhere in the county some 15 miles from
  1232
  where we were. That service was the fully equipped ambulance, the traditional white vehicle with flashing blue lights, and everything necessary.
  There is a second service—not a second-class, but a different, service — which is much more a careful management planning application, and much of that work is on 48 hours' notice. It has a sophisticated computer planning programme. I was amused when the officer put together the day's route for one of the vehicles, because I wondered why it was necessary to go to the second place of decimals for the time that it would take for the vehicle to complete its journey. That somewhat freak situation aside, it really was a most sophisticated planning function for what most lay people would describe as a busing service and not an ambulance service in the commonly accepted sense.
  What was interesting about that service — and for most of us who visited that station it was new and arose, quite rightly, out of the concern that we had seen reported in the press—was that for much less than half of the total expenditure of the ambulance service, that non-emergency service was making virtually 90 per cent. of the journeys.
  What we saw, therefore, was a sensible approach to specialisation, providing the right kind of vehicle for the right task, and the right and properly trained staff for the duties they were called upon to carry out. We saw an attempt, not yet perfect by any means, but a genuine attempt, to use the resources available in the most effective way and in a way which I would not hesitate to recommend to other authorities which are only now in receipt of the DHSS document. It seemed to me—and I believe that my colleagues would agree—that the willingness of the officers and staff to take criticism and look objectively at what they were doing was highly commendable. The way in which the staff in Nottingham responded deserves the commendation of the House, and that is why I bring it to the attention of the House tonight.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to intervene during this debate tonight to raise two things briefly and one thing principally.
  One of the points that I wish to raise briefly is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I believe that it is wrong for us on the Opposition benches to claim a monopoly of concern over the loss of civil rights that is taking place in the coalfields. I find it very difficult to understand why it is that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have not begun to express similar concern, because throughout the country there are many Conservatives who are ill at ease, and hon. Gentlemen know it.
  It is like the old argument about the bomb. I have always found it difficult to understand how it is possible for every Conservative Member of this House to be a multilateralist. It must be that Conservative pressures are exerted upon them in their constituency parties that prevent the liberal thinking which many hon. Members on this side of the House adopt, and which I certainly do.
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen will surface over these coming weeks and express concern to the Government. If they are unwilling to do it on the Floor of the House, let us hope that they will do it in private to their own Ministers, because something is going on which causes us

  1233
  concern. It has been mentioned repeatedly over the last few days and it begs answers from the Government. Yet we have a stone wall of silence.
  Dr. Michael Clark: Could I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considers that part of the civil rights of this country is the right to pass freely through the gates of one's place of work? And does he not agree that there are many Labour people in the country, and perhaps many Labour Members of the House, who consider that the denial of that liberty in Yorkshire is a denial of civil rights?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: A person who approaches a picket line makes a choice. What he does is up to him. The hon. Gentleman will find that enshrined in every piece of legislation and in all guidance given by the TUC. It is his right to choose. If he chooses not to cross the picket line, that is his decision and it is not an invasion of his freedom. He is exercising his freedom, and he is aware of what he is doing if he crosses the picket line.
  Different perceptions exist between Labour and Conservative Members on many issues, and that brings me to the second matter that I wish to raise, that of Oman. [Interruption.] This matter will not die a death. It will persist and be raised repeatedly until we get the answers. It will not go away. When, one day, the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and makes a statement, it will end, but not before.
  We have different perceptions of what constitutes acceptable conduct by Ministers of the Crown. Many people, both inside and outside the House, believe that, even if the Prime Minister knew of her son's interest, and even if she had raised the question of Cementation during those negotiations, that would constitute acceptable conduct. They are entitled to hold that view though they cannot understand why Labour Members and others in the House are expressing reservations about that form of activity.
  They do not understand that there is a different perception by other hon. Members of the act of discussing a contract when it could be seen that her son was a beneficiary in terms of being in receipt of a commission. They are unwilling to accept that two different perceptions exist and that, while we in the House are divided on the issue, people in the country are equally divided on whether what happened was acceptable conduct.
  We are trying to establish the truth. We are not asking Conservative Members to accept our terms and our perception of what is acceptable conduct. We are simply saying that we have a right to know the truth, and then let the country decide in its own way what it believes is right and proper.
  Even in my family there are different perceptions. I have relatives who believe that what happened was perfectly acceptable. I do not believe that. However, I do not challenge their judgment and they do not challenge mine. But we are all equally entitled to know the truth, and that is what this debate is about. That is why we do not intend to let go.
  I come to the main point that I wish to raise, and I raise it with a heavy heart because I have sought every possible way of not having to raise it tonight. It relates to Cementation and to certain aspects of Messrs. Cementation International Limited's arrangements with respect to export guarantee support for cover on the
  1234
  contract to build the university in Oman. Later I shall refer to seven telephone calls that I made today to Cementation to try to avoid the need for me to raise the matter tonight. I did not wish to come to the House to discuss it, and Cementation was told clearly that I had investigated every other possible means of raising the issue and that this was the only option left open to me.
  In relation to these arrangements for export credit guarantee support and cover for the contract, I have until tonight made no public statements. When I have been pressed—because journalists have known of my interest in the subject—I have said that I was not willing to make a public statement because I felt that to do so would not be in the public interest and that it would be unfair to Cementation.
  I was approached by a number of journalists and other persons who referred me to what they believed to be the case. These are allegations. They are not founded on anything more than hearsay. It is on that basis that I have to bring them to the House. It is on that basis that I sought not to bring them to the House. The allegations are not proven. They were that Cementation had involved itself in irregularities in relation to the export credit guarantee cover which it sought on various sub-contracted parts of the contract to build the university.
  When I was first approached I wrote to the Committee of Public Accounts and asked it, in so far as the accounting officer of the ECGD reports to that Committee, whether it would be willing to approach the ECGD on behalf of the taxpayer to ask it to carry out an investigation into the allegations that had been made to me. In my letter to the Chairman of the PAC on 8 March I said:
  "During the course of the last few weeks I have been able to discuss the matter of Cementation's Export Credit Guarantees Department cover with a number of people and during the course of one particular conversation statements were made which I feel compelled to raise before the Public Accounts Committee. I am informed by sources close to Cementation that every effort was made to maximise the value of that part of the contract covered by ECGD."
  That is a perfectly acceptable activity.
  "It is alleged that Cementation's cover as provided by ECGD was the subject of a number of conditions and assurances given to the Department on domestic British content to the Contract and that these conditions have been deliberately broken in a number of respects. Contracts are alleged to have been passed abroad in respect of work that was the subject of the condition that it should be carried out at home here in the United Kingdom."
  That would also take into account the arrangement for European work to be included under the general heading of British ECGD cover because there is some arrangement whereby European work can be included under our general heading of cover.
  I raised that matter with the PAC. I clearly cannot comment on the Committee's deliberations because I should probably be in contempt, but I can say that it was the Committee's decision not to proceed with my complaint. I then wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General referring to discussions that had taken place during the course of the Committee where clearly he was in attendance. I asked him whether he would be willing to carry out inquiries into my complaint.
  In his reply of 29 March the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
  "In brief, on the E.C.G.D., I have a statutory obligation to undertake a financial and regularity audit, which culminates in my giving a published audit opinion on the accounts: a statutory right to undertake an investigation into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which it has used its resources in

  1235
  discharging its functions and a power to report to the House of Commons on the results of my audit and investigations. The effect of section 9 of the National Audit Act of 1982, was to give me the power to report separately from the accounts, but the power to report remains confined to reports of the House of Commons. Section 1(2) of that Act made me an officer of the House: and section 1(3) specifies that I should take into account any proposals made by the P.A.C. in determining whether to carry out any examination."
  I then miss a paragraph and the letter goes on:
  "It follows that I can not undertake an inquiry dealing with the points which you have raised and report the results to you as an individual member of the House. Particularly in the light of the 1982 Act I do not think I could reasonably disregard the Public Accounts Committee's reaction to your request, go ahead with a special investigation with the points you have raised and report the results to the House of Commons. What I can say, however, is that we shall take account of the points you have made in our continuing monitoring of the E.C.G. In addition may I suggest that if you wish to pursue the particular queries raised in P.A.C. 135 your best course would be to express these as precisely as possible and address them direct to the accounting officer of the E.C.G. Jack Gill?"
  That was the route that I intended to take. None of this matter had been made public. It had all been dealt with confidentially. I had not made any public statements that might have embarrassed the company, any hon. Member or any Committee. It was all under wraps.
  I then took advice about whether I could approach the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Before I discuss that point, I shall quote from another document in my possession. Yesterday, giving some support of the information that I had received about irregularities, an article by Paul Foot appeared in the Daily Mirror under the heading:
  "Flakt or Fiction? How a juicy slice of the Oman contract went to Sweden".
  He said:
  "A slice of the Oman University contract, which was won by Cementation in a burst of patriotism by the firm's consultant Mark Thatcher, and his mother,…has gone to a Swedish company.
  This has annoyed at least one British company which tendered for the contract…Mr. George Fennell, managing director of Unicoils of Sussex, complained in a letter to"——
  In order to avoid mentioning the hon. Member to whom he wrote, I shall skip part of the letter. The hon. Member had visited the factory. According to Mr. Foot, Mr. Fennell reminded the hon. Member of his visit and complained:
  "that a £300,000 contract for air conditioning in the Oman University buildings had been awarded to the Swedish company, Flakt. He said he believed in free trade, but this was a special case of the Prime Minister promoting British business."
  Whatever—the hon. Member concerned——
  "wrote back has entirely satisfied Mr. Fennell. 'This was private between us,' he said. 'I have nothing to say about it.' The contract clearly causes some confusion at Cementation. When I first asked about it, a spokeswoman told me: 'Flakt is a Belgian company and this is part of the percentage of the contract we were allowed to put with EEC companies.' When I protested that Flakt was in fact a Swedish company, and pointed out that Sweden is not a member of the EEC, the spokeswoman said: 'Our contract is with Flakt Products, of Staines, Middlesex.' Mr. Gordon Ruxton, a director of Flakt, told me: 'The air conditioning units will not be made in Britain. They will be made at our factory in Stockholm.'"
  My complaints have been general, but Mr. Paul Foot identifies what he believes to be a specific complaint. It is also alleged that a tile contract was given to a Turkish company—Turkey is not in the Common Market either—and that an aluminium window contract for which two British companies bid and were legitimately undercut by an Italian company within the Common Market has
  1236
  been given to an Omani contractor. These are all allegations, and I would have preferred not to have had to bring them before the House.
  It is believed by some that all those contracts are the subject of ECGD support.
  The allegations may be scurrilous. They may be totally unfounded. Equally, it may be that they are true. That is why I have had to talk about them tonight. I believe that the House needs to know—and that some way should be found of telling the public—what happened.
  I rang Cementation at lunchtime today and asked to speak to the chairman, Mr. Grundy. I rang him on three occasions and was informed that he could not speak to me. I then rang Mr. James Poole, the external relations spokesman to whom I had been referred, on two occasions. Subsequently, during the course of three further telephone conservations, I was able to talk to him. I put it to him that I wanted to send a letter to ECGD but in transmission of that letter, even though I was a Member of Parliament, I might well be transmitting a libel.
  To avoid having to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, I wanted a simple assurance from Cementation that, in the transmission of that document, I would not be subject to expensive litigation that I can call ill afford. Mr. James Poole consulted Cementation International Ltd. I was able to speak to him some hours later and he said that consideration had been give to my request and that Cementation was unwilling to give me such an undertaking. I argued firmly that if Cementation gave me that undertaking on the one document that I sent to the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, I would make no public statements and would not reveal its contents to any person or journalist anywhere, apart from in private. I said that I would not make any statement about that correspondence to anyone apart from people in ECGD. I also gave an undertaking that, in the event of the allegations being found to be scurrilous, I would not repeat them and that I would refer to the matter only if the allegations were founded on truth. It was clear in my conversation with Mr. James Poole that I was giving Cementation every opportunity to allow me to deal with the matter privately so that nobody would know about it. I was refused the undertaking. In the final conversation I explained that I had no option but to use privilege and raise the matter as I have this evening.
  I may have made a rather long-winded speech, but I must put these matters on the record. I hope that the media do not dramatise what I have said. I have tried to put it in a reasonable and sensible way. I do not know whether there is truth in the allegations, but they were referred to me as a Member of Parliament. The only thing that I could have done, other than raise it as I have, was visit Cementation and make a statement about the allegations. However, I was also informed, based on legal advice, that even doing that I might commit a libel, so limited are our powers as Members of Parliament.
  I could have tabled questions on documents that I had sent to Ministers. The problem with that is that most questions on Cementation are now blocked. They were firmly blocked in the Prime Minister's reply this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). In many ways, she is responsible for what is happening this evening. Every attempt by right hon. and hon. Members now to table questions on Cementation is no longer dealt with in the Table Office. It might come as a surprise to hon. Members to learn that any question about

  1237
  the contract for the university in Oman, Cementation or declaration of interest is automatically referred to the Chief Clerk. That is the measure of the attempt by Downing street, Bernard Ingham, the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Conservative party, and the British Establishment——
  Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: When I have finished this point.
  Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall give way at my discretion. Would you point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is the normal procedure of the House? Every attempt has been made by people in power to ensure that the full truth is not known.
  Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Clerks of the House are in any way being influenced in the exercise of their discretion by the Government.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, on the contrary. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. The Clerks are under instruction. They have to comply with the rules of the House in the laying of questions. If questions are blocked, the Clerks are not allowed to lay those questions. Those questions are blocked. What this means is that, as the blocking mechanism is used by Ministers in relation to this particular matter, increasingly Members will have to use the Floor to raise their queries. That is what we will do. Whenever questions are blocked, we will raise them on the Floor, whether it be direct to the Departments concerned, whether it be to the Leader of the House, or whether it be to the Prime Minister.
  Having sat on two Committees—the Committee on Public Accounts, where it is very difficult to raise this matter, and five meetings of the Committee on Members' Interests — I believe that we have reached the stage where it is very difficult to get an objective judgment from a Committee where there are clearly political considerations, and that we are coming to a point where it may well be that Parliament is not competent to deal with this matter.
  I may be dissenting from the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in that respect, in the sense that he believes that a special Committee of the House could be set up. I am sure that he would even have reservations about that. It may be necessary to go even further and to have a full commission of inquiry into what happened, because the people——
  Mr. Williams: I do not think that there is any dissension between my hon. Friend and myself. The Committee that I was considering was purely in relation to the adequacy of the rules of guidance. My hon. Friend is referring to a commission of inquiry into the actual incident. I would agree with him that, since we cannot get the answers on the Floor of the House, and since we cannot get the answers through questions, it may well be that the route that he suggests is the one that we will have to press for on the actual Oman incident.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend, when talking about rules of guidance, is obviously referring to
  1238
  the Cabinet memorandum on Ministers and their requirement to declare or divest themselves of interests, the problem whereby the Prime Minister has overall control of the judgment of whether people are complying, and the fact that in this case there is a conflict between her function and her own position as the Minister about whom the complaints are being made. To that extent, therefore, this is a matter that could be dealt with internally by the House.
  As regards the actual issue of what happened in Oman, however, it may well be that we now need a commission of inquiry to be set up, because the truth will come out in the end. We are not going to let go. When I hear hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches growl, as they do each time these questions are asked, I tell them that they can keep on growling because, until we get the answers, the House will not be satisfied. Nor will the people in the country be satisfied. In the end it may well become an even greater issue, because outside the House journalists who six or 10 weeks ago were indifferent to what happened are now taking an interest. The fact that there are British journalists scurrying around the middle east and Hong Kong, that major media programmes are carrying out their own investigations, and that there are many Fleet Street journalists now involved in investigating this affair stems solely from the fact that the Prime Minister has sought to delay in replying to the House. If she had been forthcoming 10 weeks ago, those journalists would not now today be involved in their activities.
  The longer it goes on, the more those journalists are going to get involved. I can tell by the number of people who call me and to whom I refuse to give statements because of my particular position as a member of the two Committees to which I was making representations. They are pressing more and more, all the time. If people in the country at large believe that the matter is dead and that Parliament does not appear to be responding in so far as it is dead, they make a mistake. The change that we have noticed over the past few months is that increasingly Conservative Members are privately expressing reservations. It is well known also that when my motion was tabled and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) tabled his counter motion, the first 200 signatories went on his motion with great ease. After that, the Whips had to press many Conservative Members to sign the motion. Many of them objected most strongly, for they felt that they were being intimidated by their Whips and by Ministers to sign a motion when they did not want to do so. They felt that they were being required to sign what was in effect an oath of loyalty to the Prime Minister.
  We cannot run Parliament on that basis, and we should not set out to do so. It is about time that Conservative Members demanded of the Prime Minister that she was forthcoming and made a statement so that the public could feel assured that the office of Prime Minister and the integrity of that office was being fully protected, because at present questions are being asked about that.
  12.21 am
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Before the House rises for the Easter recess it would be helpful if it considered the level of crime, which is a severe and increasing problem, and some of the measures that could be taken to reduce it. This not a subject that lends itself to a short debate, nor is it a controversial subject, because there are views on both sides of the House which are

  1239
  extremely helpful. It is a non-party political subject. We all have a common interest in securing a reduction in the levels of crime. There is no monopoly of wisdom on either side of the House.
  The figures are alarming. In 1972 there were 1·5 million recorded offences, and by 1982 the figure had risen to over 3 million. At the same time the clear-up rate was falling. It fell from 46 per cent. in 1972 to 37 per cent. in 1982. As crime increases the clear-up figures tend to fall.
  When we read the press, we gain the impression that crimes of violence are the most common form of offences. That is because those crimes reach the press. The crime that has taken off over the past few years is that of burglary. There were about 500,000 burglaries in 1979, and that figure increased to about 800,000 in 1982. It is a figure that is increasing all the time and it is the offence that causes most fear to those living in south London. One of the saddest features is that in 1983 nearly a half of all the arrests in Britain were of young people under 21 years of age, and one-fifth of all arrests involved youngsters under the age of 16.
  What can we do to help reduce the level of crime? Successive Governments, over 20 or 30 years, have not achieved a great deal. We can begin by setting a good example ourselves in our behaviour inside and outside the House. We can encourage—we should do so—public awareness of the problems of crime. We must spend more time trying to harness community co-operation in getting crime reduced. The growth of the neighbourhood watch scheme over the past few years, especially in London, has helped to reduce crime. Groups of residents in streets band together and keep an eye on one another's houses while their neighbours are away on holiday. They appoint a spokesman to keep in touch with the local police station. They are generally vigilant and they go in for the property marking scheme. This is an example of the public becoming involved. Where the neighbourhood watch schemes have operated, nearly 70 in the metropolitan area, crime, especially burglary, has fallen considerably.
  The victim support scheme is another major way in which the public are involved. There are about 30 such schemes in the metropolitan area and they encourage members of the public to become involved in helping out. The purpose is to harness community co-operation.
  The Home Office should begin the great debate on new ideas to help reduce crime. Does the Home Office spend enough time thinking about ideas? Its budget is enormous, but how much of it does it spend on publicity drives to try to make people aware of the problem? The amount is an infinitesimal part of the budget. Why does the Home Office not carry out an advertising campaign on television to try to drive the country into having a crime-free day? It is part of making the public aware of the problem and of the need to co-operate.
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis produced an encouraging report recently. He dwelt on the neighbourhood watch scheme and the victim support scheme. He also mentioned police actually in force. There are too few policemen in the metropolitan area. Though the number rose last year by 750, in 1982 the authorised establishment of the police was similar to what it had been in 1972. During a 10-year period, when the number of crimes went up enormously, the number of police in force rose only slightly.
  One good thing is that last year 100 officers were transferred from the traffic department to real operational
  1240
  duties and the Commissioner has plans next year to transfer 100 more. If he could extend that to abolishing traffic wardens and devoting some of that money towards more police, he would get more support from the public.
  Crime should be rooted out when people are young. That brings me back to what can be done in the schools. Is enough being done there? I am sorry to go back to an old theme, but I regret greatly that corporal punishment is not regularly used in all our schools. Notwithstanding what the European Court says, the use of corporal punishment in schools would help considerably. I think that we should ignore the European Court occasionally when it suits us. Teachers should be trained to teach children to have greater respect for the law. We should spend more time encouraging parents to be responsible for their children's crimes. Parents can be summoned to courts, but the summons is often ineffective. Parents can be fined, but many courts do not bother to go through this process.
  Again, there might be changes in the courts system. Many motoring offences should be taken away from the courts. I attend court sometimes because of my job. In one court a man who has been caught speeding or who is appearing on a careless driving charge is fined £80; in the court next door someone who has committed a crime of violence is fined £30. There is not uniformity of sentencing. The motorist comes off badly.
  Short, sharp deterrent sentences for first offenders rather than waiting until someone has committed several offences would be a good thing. By short sentences I mean a matter of days. It is cheaper to send someone into custody for a few days or a weekend than for months. When new prisons are built, we should concentrate on building constructive prisons like Coldingly prion in Surrey, which is an industrial prison. Not only has it a re-offending rate which is lower than that of many other prisons, but it actually makes a profit, because people are put to work. That is much better for the prisoner, and it is also better for the country in terms of money saved.
  I have mentioned the need to put extra police in force, particularly in London. Many people in south London and in my constituency in North West Croydon fear that there are not enough policemen on the beat. The numbers on the beat have not increased dramatically in the last few years. How do we raise the money, because it all costs money? I sometimes think that lawyers make too much money out of the legal aid system. Perhaps I am at fault as one of them. In 1979 we were spending £55 million on the legal aid scheme in magistrates' courts and Crown courts. It is odd to think that in 1984 the projected figure is more than £130 million. That has almost tripled. In my experience, I do not think that many courts make detailed inquiries into the means of defendants before they grant legal aid. Far too few contribution orders are made by courts against legally aided persons.
  That is not to say that we should not have a good legal aid system—of course we should. We have one of the best in the world, but legal aid is often granted too readily and not enough contribution orders are made. If we could raise money through the legal aid system, as we could if it were tidied up, we would have more money to put into the real way to keep crime down—more policemen on the beat.
  I have made a few suggestions, and I draw this matter to the attention of the House to point out that over the next four years, if the crime rate goes up at the same rate at

  1241
  which it has gone up over the past four years, we shall face even more major problems. The House is full of men of energy, vision and ability, and if much of that energy was spent on constructive thought on how to reduce the level of crime, the House would, in the long term, be doing a great service to the country.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Bob Clay: I shall return to the problem of civil liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has referred to the police activity in connection with the miners' dispute, and having a large number of members of the National Union of Mineworkers in my constituency, I shall also refer to the dispute.
  Some hon. Members may feel that the only causes for complaint—although they are substantial and horrifying enough—about the abuse of civil liberties and police power, are taking place in the Nottinghamshire and midlands coalfields. Constituents of mine on the Durham coalfield have been horrified in the past few weeks. They are people who have no previous record of such an industrial dispute, who were not involved in the 1972 or the 1974 strikes and are not politically active. They have been horrified, when they went out to carry out what they saw as their necessary duty in the strike, to find that they were being threatened, that they could not cross the border into Northumberland, that they were being questioned—"Where are you going, where have come from, how long are you going to be there?" — and told not to come back.
  There have been many incidences in Durham, such as that of car insurance, but what I find most horrifying is that it is alleged that coach operators have been told by the police that not only would their drivers run the risk of being charged if they drove miners to picketing duties, but that the police could make life difficult in the long term for coach operators who hired coaches to the NUM.
  That is frightening, but I have to say that it is alleged because the coach operators concerned are so convinced by that suggestion of intimidation that they are not prepared to give their names and those of their companies. That is what is going on in Durham and Northumberland. It is not just Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in the midlands. My constituents say to me that if this is the cradle of our democracy and where, at the end of the day, our civil liberties are preserved, why is it that the House of Commons is tolerating this massive abuse of police power and erosion of civil liberties?
  On Wednesday, I travelled to the Greenham common United States air force base, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and what I saw before I got to that base was strikingly reminiscent of what I had seen on the roads of Nottinghamshire the previous week. A police road block was placed a mile from the base. The only reason why I and my right hon. Friend were allowed to proceed down a public highway in broad daylight was that we showed our identification as Members of Parliament. What an extraordinary state of affairs. There was no security implication. There were no launchers outside the base and no security operation was occurring. The only conceivable purpose of those police road blocks was to prevent ordinary citizens who wished to observe or join in a protest from visiting the gates of the base.
  1242
  Not only are miners stopped from passing from one part of the country to another and condemned to internal exile county by county, but peaceful peace protesters are to be prevented from moving towards those places where they wish to make their protest.
  Mr. John Powley: To break the law.
  Mr. Clay: As the hon. Gentleman is producing the type of intolerant comment with which we have become familiar whenever the matter has been raised in the House in the past few weeks, I refer to the exchange that occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned Poland. Conservative Members should reflect on one point. My hon. Friend referred to the rise of the free trade union, Solidarity, the activities in the shipyards of Gdansk and Stettin, led by men such as Lech Walensa. A sarcastic comment came from a Conservative Member to the effect that there was not a free Parliament over there and that people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover could not in that Parliament make speeches similiar to that which he made tonight.
  It is worth remembering—I am the last person to apologise for the Stalinist traditions of the Polish Communist party—that there was a ferment in Polish society at the time of the rise of that free trade union movement. If hon. Members had watched television closely at that time they would have seen film of Communist party branches holding—admittedly, for a brief period — free elections. People who had been delegates to the Parliament and to the Communist party congress for many years were removed after a free vote and replaced by other people. For a brief period, there were democratic debates within that society and that Parliament. On reflection, it is interesting that those dissident elements—those new, pro-Solidarity elements — went to that Communist party congress and the Parliament to speak up for free trade unions were heard with more tolerance and more respect as they made out their case for civil liberties by the old guard of the Communist party than many Conservative party Members have shown in recent weeks to Opposition Members.
  If Conservative Members do not believe me, they should check the films. Those people were heard in silence and with respect. That no longer happens. All that has died. It has been crushed and the iron fist has come down again. It is interesting that that Government managed to show more tolerance and restraint than many Conservative Members have been doing as Opposition Members raised matters that we think are crucial to democracy on our society.
  Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clay: I shall not give way. I wish to be brief. The hon. Gentleman has had one go already.
  On arriving at the Greenham common air base on Wednesday, we discovered the conspiracy hatched up by the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Transport, Berkshire county council and the police last year. I presume that all hon. Members have read the minute about which one of my hon. Friends spoke earlier in the week. The documents state, "What shall we do about these peace protesters? We shall devise a road widening scheme?" It is an ingenious use of public money for a monetarist Government to devise a road-widening scheme specifically for the purpose of clearing away peace protesters. It

  1243
  was not reported in the media, but that road-widening scheme will go on for a long tune, because there is a great deal of common land around the base and the women will camp on that common land.
  Fencing around the area which goes on and on is preventing access by our citizens to common land. I wonder whether that is legal. II reminds me of the history of earlier troubles and developments in society. It is ironic that it is not the first time that people have moves in and started fencing off common land without so much as a "by your leave". That is now going on around Greenham common to prevent peaceful protesters from getting anywhere near the base.
  The peace protesters can move from the common land, where they will now have to camp, to the main road in front of the base, where they have a legal right to be, but to do it—I do not know how far the fencing is, but it had gone a long way by Wednesday lunchtime—they will have to run about two miles down the road to get back to the gate of the base. What an appalling state of affairs. It has nothing to do with security, official secrets or anything else; it is just that the Government are no longer prepared to tolerate what is symbolic of the most peaceful protest that has been carried out consistently in this country for years.
  Gentle, pacifist women who have offered no violence throughout their protest outside the base are cleared away because they are an embarrassment to the Government, and for another reason—while they are there, they see things. They see, as one of my hon. Friend's and I did three weeks ago, an enormous United States air force transport vehicle come out of the base and smash straight into two private cars. If the women had not been there they would not have seen that. When similar vehicles come out with cruise missiles, if the drivers are as competent as those two Americans, the women would not be able to say, "God help us when they come out with the cruise missiles."
  Mr. Skinner: Probably on drugs.
  Mr. Clay: As my hon. Friend says, they were probably on drugs. To drive out and write off two cars—the axles were broken and the cars were down on the road—is some achievement when one has just left the base. The explanation my hon. Friend offered might be correct. If that had happened this week it may not have been seen because the police are trying to ensure that no one can go near the base.
  What else have the police done to try to clear away the women? They had a policy of trying to put as many of those women in gaol as possible under any pretext. A woman who has been arrested for obstruction, for example, can go to No. 1 court at Newbury magistrates' court and ask for bail or time to pay a fine. When asked for her address she can say, "Greenham common women's peace camp." The magistrate will refuse to accept that address and send her to prison for 14 or 28 days. In court No. 2 next door, a woman can appear on an identical charge and give Greenham common women's peace camp as the address and have it accepted.
  Every 14 days, Mrs. Jane Dennett receives her war widow's pension from the Ministry of Defence addressed to Mrs. Jane Dennett at Greenham common women's peace camp, but when she went to Newbury magistrates'
  1244
  court and gave that address, the magistrates sent her to Holloway for 28 days because she refused to give any other address.
  Another lady who appeared before the court was told that Greenham common women's peace camp was not an acceptable address, so she said, "But I live there." The magistrate said that she must provide other addresses, so she gave him three others. Then the magistrate said, "But you have already told me that you live at Greenham common peace camp. I cannot accept these other addresses because I know that you will not be there if we require to re-arrest you," so he sent her to gaol as well. [Interruption.] Let us have it on the record that Conservative Members are saying, "Quite right; Let us have more of it."
  All that is being done to try to disguise from the public what is going on inside an American base over which the British have no control. The women see the yellow, green and black alerts when American officers who live in the surrounding villages come screaming into the base at 5 am. All the Americans on the base go down the bunkers, and the game continues until eventually we have either won the war, or we are all dead, or both. Then the black flag goes up. The RAF troops and the Ministry of Defence police stand outside during this nuclear war and ask, "What the hell are we meant to be doing here?" The Government want to get rid of the women so that they cannot see those games.
  I began by referring to the miners' dispute, and I said that I observed in Nottinghamshire the same sort of road blocks as I observed being organised by the police in Berkshire this week. It disturbs me that, wherever we turn these days, we see the elimination of protest, attacks on protesters and intolerance towards dissent. Conservative Members are cheering it on. It frightens me more than anything that I have seen in my limited life has frightened me—[HON. MEMBERS:"Good."] Conservative Members say, "Good." It will be good for them, will it not, when Members of Parliament who disagree with them are frightened as well? That is what we are moving towards, and the sooner that the mass of working people and peaceful protesters recognise it, the sooner we shall save ourselves from the authoritarian state towards which they are taking us.
  12.47 am
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I start with a highly personal confession. This is exactly the second anniversary of my becoming Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the only birthday cheer that I shall get. I am always encouraged by the fate of Leaders of the House, especially after two years in the post.
  One of my more pleasing duties is to answer these Adjournment debates, because they have a charming divorce between content and reality.
  The content is whether we should adjourn for a mere 10 days or so for an Easter break, and no one seriously contests that proposition. However, anyone listening casually to this debate would have thought that there were 1,001 reasons why this merciful release should not be conferred upon us. The truth is that these debates are the occasion when hon. Members properly assert the deep significance which they attach to issues which are

  1245
  important now and which will be important when we return from the Easter holiday. That is a good reason for their being debated on the Floor of the House now.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was kind enough to give me notice of the points that he would raise about the fortunes of the Province during the next few weeks. I am sure that the fortunes of the Province will never pass unnoted so long as he guides the fortunes of the Official Unionist party. Despite his anxieties that Northern Ireland might be regarded by some as a failed entity, I certainly do not believe that such a view would be widely entertained in this House. The Province has asserted with determination and conviction its resolution to remain within the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the All Ireland Forum report, which we expect in the next few days or weeks. Clearly, that report will be of proper concern to the United Kingdom, albeit it will come from an independent foreign state, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, because we are bound together by geography, economy, a common history and much else. I assure him, however, that he should not go back at Easter feeling unduly apprehensive about the affairs of the Province. I certainly do not believe that there is any prospect of some ill-fated initiative. Indeed, I believe that a good precept for United Kingdom politicians to bear in mind in respect of the Province would be Talleyrand's injunction "Pas trop de zele." A policy of quiescence is perhaps the most helpful and I hope that the Government's actions will commend themselves.
  In dealing with the various points raised I am racing against the clock, so I apologise for the necessarily disjointed way in which I refer to their contributions, but I shall try to comment on the issues in the order in which they were raised.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) expressed anxiety about the Official Secrets Act, especially section 2. I note what he said and I am sure that he is right that we shall be returning to the matter as a proper subject of public debate in the coming months. I do not believe that Conservatives feel quite the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman entertains, but we shall no doubt be able to explore that further.
  Mr. Winnick: They did in 1978.
  Mr. Biffen: Yes, well, times change and, more particularly, people change as they change positions. There is nothing extraordinary or novel about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) properly drew attention to the protective role of the state in what may broadly be described as Home Office issues. He referred especially to the welfare of the young in terms of under-age sexual relations and glue-sniffing. I am sure that those matters, too, will reasonably detain us as the months go by.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), looking ahead no further than next week, referred to the arguments preceding what he described as the GLC paving Bill. The exchanges between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) displayed some of the racy controversy that will no doubt characterise the passage of that legislation and I was immensely grateful for the stout support that my hon.
  1246
  Friend was prepared to confer upon the Government with regard to this important piece of local government legislation.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the subject of what one may describe in shorthand terms as the Oman contract. Obviously, I do not agree with the general tenor of their remarks. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman raised a valid point about the changing circumstances in which the rules of ministerial conduct have to be interpreted. Perhaps in less dramatic circumstances that topic might be addressed with a degree of constructive detachment. The general points made today, however, were designed to cast considerable doubt on the propriety with which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proceeded, and I must rebut them emphatically and totally. My right hon. Friend has answered many questions on the matter. The point at issue is not her preparedness to answer questions, but rather that the answers were deemed unsatisfactory by her would-be detractors.
  The hon. Member for Workington asked about the export credits guarantee scheme. He explained the circumstances that persuaded him to withhold this matter from the House until this evening. I take note of what he said and shall refer it at once to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) asked about the future of the Elgin marbles. I have here far more authoritative words than I could ever construe, and I had better read them. The Government are still considering the reply to the Greek Government's request for the return of the Elgin marbles. A response is likely to be made shortly, but the Government's general position on the return of cultural objects has already been made clear, most recently by my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts in a debate on a proposal to amend the powers of the British museum to enable it to return such objects. That took place in another place last October. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in advance of the Government's formal reply to the Greek Government's request. That is why I prefer to make my own speeches.
  The hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) touched on the present coal strike. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Ogmore is no longer with us. It does not help this dispute, including the civil liberties aspect — which I know genuinely exercises Opposition Members—to say that Britain is rapidly becoming a police state. That is simply a travesty of what is happening. It will not help this situation, given that once it is all over the conflicting parties must learn to live together again. Every word spoken in this Chamber should have regard to that situation, which will have to proceed after a settlement.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover embellished his contribution with references to the role of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in the 1976 sub-machine gun issue. We have rumbled the Al Capone of social democracy. I have no doubt that the House will have opportunities to return to this topic at some stage after Easter.
  In no sense do I wish to be dismissive of this serious situation. What I said earlier this afternoon was quite intended. In broad circumstances it is, I believe, proper for

  1247
  the House to discuss these matters that are of great issue to the nation's economy. I understand that the civil liberties aspects are entertained by many Opposition Members, although I stoutly disagree with their interpretation of events.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) struck a chord with his appeal about Derby station. Oswestry was the citadel and heartland of the Cambrian railway. Therefore, only railway men can appreciate the deep emotions released in another railway man at the prospect of the abolition of that station, which is of such historic significance. I wish my hon. Friend well in his campaign. I am glad that he has Country Life on his side. It is a slight embellishment and novelty to our controversy to find that prayed in aid. I shall see that the Department of the Environment is alerted to the virtues of my hon. Friend's case.
  I shall see that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) about the ambulance service are referred to the relevant Government Department.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) made a short but very persuasive speech about the problems of crime and raised the issue of the uniformity of sentences and the possibility of weekend sentences. These again are points which I believe will be with the House after our Easter break, and certainly they touch on matters of widespread public concern.
  I have talked myself through the time. This is the first time that this debate has taken place at a late stage in the evening rather than in the early afternoon, but I would say that, although we may have lost a little in numbers, we have lost absolutely nothing in quality.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House at its rising on Friday 13th April do adjourn till Wednesday 25th April, and at its rising on Friday 4th May do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 13th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the Order of 23rd June relating to Business of the House, Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government Business on Friday 27th April instead of Friday 13th April and Private Members' Bills which now stand in the Order Book for Friday 13th April shall have precedence over any other Bill which may have been set down for Friday 27th April: provided that the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall apply to the arrangement of Bills on the Order Paper on that day.—[Mr. Lang.]

  School Transport
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
  Dr. Michael Clark: I welcome the opportunity of raising the subject of school transport in rural areas and I would like to review the existing law on statutory provision of school transport, look at some of the shortcomings of the law and illustrate them by examples from my constituency, Rochford.
  Section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 puts a duty on local education authorities to
  "make such arrangements for the provision of transport … as they consider necessary",
  and the transport provided must be free. The word "necessary" is not defined, but it is quite common for authorities, when deciding what arrangements to make, to take into account the law relating to school attendance as set out in section 39 of the 1944 Act—namely, that parents have a duty to secure the attendance of their children of compulsory school age. I will come back later to that word "necessary".
  The duty to which I have just referred does not apply if a school is not within walking distance unless suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for the pupils' transport to and from the appropriate school. The walking distance referred to was set in 1870 as three miles. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recall that 1870 was the time of the Franco-Prussian war, when railways were comparatively new, the internal combustion engine had not been developed and the attitude to walking was very different from the attitude to walking now.
  The walking distance of three miles was confirmed in the 1944 Act and, as well as confirming that distance for children over 8 years of age, it set a new walking distance of two miles for children below the age of 8. However, in 1973 the Department of Education and Science report on school transport acknowledged that there had been a change in people's habits with the extension of ownership of the motorcar and public transport. Thus, it pointed out that in normal life children aged 8 or less simply do not walk two miles these days, and are not expected to do so. Similarly, older children are not expected to walk and do not walk regularly three miles or more two or four times a day, as they would have to if they went to and from a school and home for their lunch.
  This situation had already been recognised in the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953, section 12, which empowers local education authorities to fill any vacant seats in transport provided for the eligible children with ineligible pupils, charging a "reasonable" fare. So that Act accepted that it was not reasonable to expect all children to walk 2·8 or 2·9 miles, and that if there were places available on buses they should be given to the ineligible children at a reasonable rate.
  No mention has been made so far of safety, and as motor traffic has increased in volume sixfold since 1944, safety is obviously an important factor. In 1954, in Shaxted v. Ward, it was ruled that distance, not danger, was the overriding factor in determining statutory requirements for free transport. That a way of saying that the shortest distance, regardless of whether it was safe or unsafe in the eyes of the parents, the children or the authority, had to be measures and that if that turned out to be less than three miles, free transport would not be

  1249
  provided. It did not say whether safety should be taken into account in considering the word "necessary", to which I referred, when it was said that transport should be provided if the education authority thought it necessary.
  I submit that safety is a factor that should be taken into account in determining the word "necessary" in any situation. In 1965, the then Minister, in a circular letter, urged local education authorities to use their discretion more often with regard to dangerous routes. It would appear that the Minister was mindful of the safety aspect in relation to the 1944 Act in considering what was "necessary."
  I will illustrate the effect that the law has on the lives and safety of children in Hullbridge, in my constituency, who travel to Park school in Rayleigh, and I submit that in this case transport is necessary. Hullbridge is a community of about 7,000 people. A school was built to serve that community in 1975, but it was sited by Essex education authority 2·8 miles from the centre of Hullbridge in the town of Rayleigh, which already had two large secondary schools.
  It was unfortunate, in my view and that of the people of Hullbridge, that the school was sited in a town which was 2·8 miles distant. Essex county council probably recognised that, and, as a sweetener to Hullbridge parents, decided to provide concessionary transport for all the children from Hullbridge to Park school.
  Today, the school roll at Park school is 1,160, of whom 299 come from beyond Hullbridge and pass through Hullbridge on their way to Park school; 600 come from Hullbridge itself, and of that 600, only 10 are entitled to statutory free transport to go from that school and from that town to the school in Rayleigh; and 590, and the 600 from Hullbridge, have concessionary transport.
  Essex county council has, however, notified parents of children in Hullbridge that that concessionary transport will be withdrawn after this Easter holiday. That means that after Easter, 590 pupils who have in the past travelled by coach and bus will have to find their own way to Park school in Rayleigh.
  The route from Hullbridge to Rayleigh is, as I said, 2·8 miles long, and it is dangerous. Pupils will have to cross three busy roads, one of which is designated the main link road between Hullbridge and Chelmsford, and they will have to negotiate a junction with a traffic volume between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning of over 1,000 vehicles per hour, which is one vehicle every four seconds, making it difficult for them to find a gap in the vehicles to cross the road. They will have to walk the majority of the way along the footpaths which are immediately adjacent to the main roads, with no hedge, kerb or fence to act as a barrier. The traffice is busy, heavy and fast-moving.
  I was a witness on two days when the pupils boycotted the buses and walked along that road to demonstrate what it would be like after Easter when the coaches were withdrawn. What I saw was disturbing. About 590 children crowded onto a narrow footpath, part of which was built especially to accommodate them when the coaches were withdrawn. In the four or five monthe during which that footpath has been in existence it has witnessed four accidents. On one occasion a car careered across the road, on two occasions lamp standards on the footpath have been knocked down, and on another a fence behind the footpath was knocked down. Fortunately, on all four
  1250
  occasions no children were walking to school and nobody was injured. But after Easter that footpath will have up to 590 children on it twice, possibly four times, a day.
  I saw the children walking in the road because the footpath was not wide enough. I saw normal boisterous horseplay. There was nothing wrong with that, but when children pushed and shoved and finished up in the road it was dangerous. I saw lorries swerving to miss the children. On one occasion two young girls took a short cut through lanes and woodland that were unlit and dangerous and a possible haunt for molesters. Some children arrived by car, but the congestion at Park school, which is built on the brow of a hill with double white lines on the road and zero visibility over the hill, was such that the police would not allow parents to stop in case they caused an accident.
  As a consequence of that trial or demonstration—call it what one will—traffic lights will now be erected at the major junction; some roads in Rayleigh, 2·8 miles away from Hullbridge, will be turned into one-way streets to try to reduce the congestion at the particular junction; and the police are still considering how to deal with the extra road traffic that is bound to result from the children either walking, cycling or being taken to and from school. As the police will not allow parents to stop outside the school to drop the children off and as they will not allow the cars to go into the school in case there is a tail-back on to the dangerous main road, there is still a problem of how parents who wish to take their children to school by car will be able to get them out of the car and into the school.
  All this that I have described is to try to provide some measure of protection to the children and other road users. The traffic lights, the one-way system and the police attempts to sort out the traffic chaos are the consequence of the withdrawal of concessionary transport to 590 children who will have to walk 2·8 miles.
  I make it abundantly clear that I know that Essex county council is acting within the law. But it is not taking the advice contained in the 1965 letter from the Minister asking it to use discretion more often with regard to dangerous routes. Nor is Essex county council following the spirit of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science dated 15 December 1981 when he expressed the view that local education authorities should think it right not to disturb well-established arrangements for transport, some of which have been associated with a local agreement or understanding about the siting of schools.
  Admittedly the Secretary of State was talking about voluntary schools where there is parental choice, but how much more important it is to retain local agreements on transport to state schools in a catchment area with little or no choice. Indeed, if choice were exercised at all in that particular case it would involve children travelling more than three miles in any case. The arrangements that are now being withdrawn were certainly well-established. They have been established for nine years from 1975 to 1984.
  I know that the Secretary of State would not normally intervene in matters which legitimately fall in the local authority's jurisdiction. However, the safety hazard here is of such severity, the number of children on a single road so large, and the need for transport so inescapable, that the withdrawal of transport is unreasonable in the strict legal

  1251
  sense. I think, therefore, that the authority should think again about the word "necessary" and should consider that transport is necessary in this case.
  In conclusion, I should like to draw attention to two other points. They are important points, even though I have only a little time to devote to them.
  In 1973 the working party of the Department of Education and Science, in addition to its unease about the danger, pointed to the abrupt cut-off of free transport at three miles and the provision of consessionary transport after a school closure.
  On the latter point, I fear that if Sutton school near Rochford is closed consessionary transport may be offered in order to pacify the parents, and withdrawn by Essex county council at a later date because the children are travelling less than two miles. The distance will be 1·8 miles.
  School closures create a need for school transport. If some of the village schools were kept open, there would be no need for transport. Many of the teachers in those schools are excellent, and the schools are worthy of being kept open.
  On the point about the abrupt cut-off, there are many examples of children who live next door to each other being treated differently because one is within the three-mile limit and the other outside it. The children may use the same bus-stop to get to school, one paying and the other travelling free. This is the situation in Lodge road, Bicknacre, with children travelling to South Woodham Ferrers. Until recently they all travelled four miles to Wickford, but with educational progress a new school has been built at South Woodham Ferrers. Some children travel free to that school and others, living 2·99 miles away, have to pay. Progress in this case is expensive for the parents and the 10 yards that separates two houses may be a very expensive 10 yards.
  The current situation on the provision of school transport is not satisfactory. I would agree with the resolution adopted by Essex county council in 1982:
  "That this Council requests the Association of County Councils to seek amendment to the 1944 Education Act so that, in future assessments for school transport provision, personal risk, traffic and road safety criteria must be taken fully into account and that present distance requirements from home to school be reviewed as a matter of urgency."
  I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise these points. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and hope that he will explain his thinking on school transport, particularly with regard to the safety of children.
  1.18 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on his success in obtaining this debate. His remarks suggest that he has done some outstanding historical research, and I know that his constituents will approve of his efforts in bringing a number of points to my attention tonight.
  I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech on the problems faced by his constituents in relation to school transport. He has made his points clearly and I will attempt to answer him in the same way. I will do so by setting out the law on school transport as it stands at present, refer to our attempt to change it and then deal with the particular problems he has raised.
  1252
  The main provision governing home to school transport is section 55 of the Education Act 1944. Under section 55(1) local education authorities are under a duty to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at schools. Any arrangements made under this subsection must be free of charge to the parents.
  What is necessary for the purpose of section 55(1) is not defined, but it is quite common for authorities, when deciding what arrangements to make, to take into account the law relating to school attendance which is set out in section 39 of the 1944 Act. Under that section, parents have a duty to secure the attendance of their children of compulsory school age. However, the duty does not apply if, among other things, the school at which the child is registered is not within walking distance of the child's home and no suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for his transport to and from school. Walking distance is defined in the Act as two miles for a pupil under 8 years of age and three miles for an older pupil measured by the nearest available route.
  Section 55(2) is also relevant. Under this provision, local education authorities have the power to pay the whole or part of the fares of a pupil for whom they have made no arrangements to provide free transport under section 55(1). Where transport is provided under section 55(1), authorities may also make a charge for pupils who, although ineligible for free transport, occupy spare seats on vehicles provided to carry pupils who are eligible. I understand that Essex makes use of this "spare seats" provision and charges parents £20 per term. That compares with an average cost to the authority of £60 per term.
  My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that LEAs have considerable freedom, within the law, to deal with school transport. In forming their judgment on what is "necessary", to use the key word in section 55(1), they can take account of many factors, such as distance between home and school, the age and health of a pupil, the availability of other means of transport, the availability of other appropriate schools and safety. The extent to which LEAs have this freedom is shown by the fact that Essex adopts a qualifying distance for free transport of 1·5 miles for pupils under 8 years of age as compared with the two miles referred to in section 39.
  I shall elaborate on the issue of safety in view of my hon. Friend's concern— a concern with which I have every sympathy. I understand the natural fears of his constituents. Whilst safety is a factor to which LEAs may address themselves under section 55(1), they are under no compulsion to do so and it does not arise under section 39. As my hon. Friend has already said, in 1954, the courts considered this point in a school attendance case — Shaxted v. Ward—in which the parent claimed that the "nearest available route", which the authority stated his child could walk and which was within the statutory walking distance under section 39, was not "available" because it was unsafe. The parent argued that the alternative route was over the walking distance and that this entitled him to free school transport. The court found against the parent on the grounds that the test to be used in determining the "nearest available route"—the words used in section 39 — was solely one of distance, not safety. I stress that this does not mean that LEAs cannot take safety into account but rather that it is a matter for

  1253
  their judgment and discretion, under section 55. That illustrates the unsatisfactory and confusing nature of the present law.
  I shall now consider our attempts to change the law. My hon. Friend should know that we remain dissatisfied with the present law on school transport. Hon. Members will recall that, as part of our proposals for what became the Education Act 1980, we tried to change the law to provide what, in our view, would have been a fairer system. Under our proposals at that time local authorities would have been able to arrange school transport and charge for it at a flat rate while offering it free when there was financial hardship. That would, we believe, have produced a more just system and allowed LEAs to secure useful savings and given them room to introduce some flexibility in providing free or subsidised fares on public transport. However, those proposals were defeated in another place. Although there is continuing criticism of the current provisions, it remains the case that there is no agreement on the basis for change. We continue, however, to watch the situation closely.
  I turn to the issues which my hon. Friend has raised concerning his constituency of Rochford. I appreciate the problems which my hon. Friend has referred to in connection with pupils travelling between Hullbridge and Park school. We have already corresponded on this problem and my hon. Friend has recently forwrded a complaint from some of his constituents under section 68 of the Education Act 1944 alleging that the authority has acted unreasonably. We are investigating that complaint
  1254
  and I shall write to my hon. Friend when a decision has been taken. I cannot therefore comment at this stage, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the case will be considered most carefully and that I shall take account of the points which he has made tonight.
  I am already aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the Essex authority's proposals to cease to maintain Sutton county primary school. There are transport implications here which he has drawn to my attention. I cannot, of course, comment on the proposals or the points made tonight by my hon. Friend because I can say nothing which might be interpreted as prejudicing my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role when considering statutory proposals. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that full accout will be taken of all that he has said before the decision is taken.
  I hope that in the short time available to me I have been able to answer the points or some of the points, raised tonight by my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the particular points he has raised on specific matters affecting his constituents will be fully taken into account at the appropriate times. More generally, I will note the dissatisfaction which exists on school transport and the current law. I cannot—as I have already indicated—offer any early prospect of making another attempt to bring proposals before the House.
  I should like to finish by again thanking my hon. Friend for bringing these matters to my attention and to that of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.

ENERGY
  Coke Prices
  Coke Prices
  Deep Mined Coal
  Deep Mined Coal
  Meter Reading
  Meter Reading
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Coal Supplies (Domestic Consumers)
  Coal Supplies (Domestic Consumers)
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Custodial Remands (London)
  Custodial Remands (London)
  Justices of the Peace
  Justices of the Peace
  Remanded Prisoners (Belfast)
  Remanded Prisoners (Belfast)
TRANSPORT
  Breath Tests (Records)
  Breath Tests (Records)
  Motor Accidents (Drink-Driving)
  Motor Accidents (Drink-Driving)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  M40 (Wheatley-Birmingham)
  M40 (Wheatley-Birmingham)
  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Coastguard VHF Facilities
  Coastguard VHF Facilities
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Russian Nationals (Work Permits)
  Russian Nationals (Work Permits)
  Breathalyser Tests
  Breathalyser Tests
  Anti-apartheid Protests
  Anti-apartheid Protests
  Stop-and-Search (Islington)
  Stop-and-Search (Islington)
  Prison Industries
  Prison Industries
  Police National Reporting Centre
  Police National Reporting Centre
  Greenham Common (Policing Costs)
  Greenham Common (Policing Costs)
  Home Defence (Police Manual)
  Home Defence (Police Manual)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  War (Departmental Circulars)
  War (Departmental Circulars)
  Lion Intoximeter (Monitoring Period)
  Lion Intoximeter (Monitoring Period)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Cats and Dogs (Research)
  Cats and Dogs (Research)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Awards Regulations
  Awards Regulations
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Lomé III (Human Rights)
  Lomé III (Human Rights)
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  EEC (Customs Duties and Agricultural Levies)
  EEC (Customs Duties and Agricultural Levies)
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  EEC (Agricultural Expenditure Guideline)
  EEC (Agricultural Expenditure Guideline)
  Public Sector Appointments (Advice)
  Public Sector Appointments (Advice)
WALES
  Special Schools (Places)
  Special Schools (Places)
  Drainage (Housing Projects)
  Drainage (Housing Projects)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
EMPLOYMENT
  Union Membership
  Union Membership
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Departmental Property
  Departmental Property
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Youth Training Schemes (Shopfloor Supervisors)
  Youth Training Schemes (Shopfloor Supervisors)
  School Leavers (Vocational Preparation)
  School Leavers (Vocational Preparation)
  Benefit Fraud
  Benefit Fraud
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Flooding (Wakefield)
  Flooding (Wakefield)
  Bridge Street Underpass
  Bridge Street Underpass
  Owner-occupiers
  Owner-occupiers
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Recreational Land (Disposals)
  Recreational Land (Disposals)
  Flooding (Wakefield)
  Flooding (Wakefield)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Departments (Expenditure)
  Departments (Expenditure)
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Inflation and Economic Growth
  Inflation and Economic Growth
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man (Company Taxation)
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man (Company Taxation)
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  Economic Recovery
  Economic Recovery
  Bank Deposits (Taxation)
  Bank Deposits (Taxation)
  Banks (Private Sector Borrowing)
  Banks (Private Sector Borrowing)
  Company Profitability
  Company Profitability
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Age Allowance
  Age Allowance
  Ports (Customs Staff)
  Ports (Customs Staff)
  European Community Budget (Rebates)
  European Community Budget (Rebates)
  Industry (Budget Proposals)
  Industry (Budget Proposals)
  Investment Returns
  Investment Returns
  Seafarers (Overseas Earnings)
  Seafarers (Overseas Earnings)
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Industry (Profitability)
  Industry (Profitability)
  Budget Proposals (Representations)
  Budget Proposals (Representations)
  Construction Industry (VAT)
  Construction Industry (VAT)
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Industrial Output, Unemployment and Inflation
  Industrial Output, Unemployment and Inflation
  Bank Interest (Taxation)
  Bank Interest (Taxation)
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Finance Council
  Finance Council
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Association of Former Trainees of the European Communities
  Association of Former Trainees of the European Communities
  Building Alterations (VAT)
  Building Alterations (VAT)
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Taxation Charges
  Taxation Charges
  Furnished Holiday Lettings
  Furnished Holiday Lettings
  EEC (Budget Rebate)
  EEC (Budget Rebate)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Tax and Age Allowances
  Tax and Age Allowances
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Convoy Exercises (Notification Procedures)
    Convoy Exercises (Notification Procedures)
    Maleseal Moloise
    Maleseal Moloise
    Rudolph Hess
    Rudolph Hess
    Zimbabwe (Currency Restrictions)
    Zimbabwe (Currency Restrictions)
    Hong Kong
    Hong Kong
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Hospitals (Admissions)
  Mental Hospitals (Admissions)
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Sub-postmasters (National Insurance Payments)
  Sub-postmasters (National Insurance Payments)
  NHS Tribunal
  NHS Tribunal
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Local Authority Residential Places
  Local Authority Residential Places
  Elderly People (Expenditure)
  Elderly People (Expenditure)
  North-West Thames Regional Health Authority
  North-West Thames Regional Health Authority
  Oxygen Cylinders
  Oxygen Cylinders
  Equipment and Materials (Suppliers)
  Equipment and Materials (Suppliers)
  London Rubber Company
  London Rubber Company
  Chronic Renal Failure (Survey)
  Chronic Renal Failure (Survey)
  Consultant Opinions (Hospital Referrals)
  Consultant Opinions (Hospital Referrals)
  Medical Technology
  Medical Technology
  Health Service (Privatisation)
  Health Service (Privatisation)
  Mr. John Gooderham
  Mr. John Gooderham
  EC Directive 82/76 (Specialist Doctors)
  EC Directive 82/76 (Specialist Doctors)
  Parallel Importing (Medicinal Products)
  Parallel Importing (Medicinal Products)
  Infectious Diseases (Communication of Information)
  Infectious Diseases (Communication of Information)
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Hazardous Substances (Leakages)
  Hazardous Substances (Leakages)
SCOTLAND
  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Parole
  Parole
  Urban and Rural Areas (Classification)
  Urban and Rural Areas (Classification)
  EC (Farm Price Review)
  EC (Farm Price Review)
  Grampian Region
  Grampian Region
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Weather Damage (Financial Assistance)
  Weather Damage (Financial Assistance)
  Museum of Scotland
  Museum of Scotland
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Nurses (Training)
  Nurses (Training)
  Vandalism (Windows)
  Vandalism (Windows)
  Insulation
  Insulation
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Old Persons' Dwellings
  Old Persons' Dwellings
  Forces Personnel (Supplementary Benefit)
  Forces Personnel (Supplementary Benefit)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Schools Amalgamation (Armagh)
  Schools Amalgamation (Armagh)
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Beam Trawlers
  Beam Trawlers
  Remand Prisons (Belfast Prison)
  Remand Prisons (Belfast Prison)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Gas Warfare
  Gas Warfare
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Bankruptcy
  Bankruptcy
  System X Telephone Exchange
  System X Telephone Exchange
  INMOS
  INMOS
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (Exhibition)
  Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (Exhibition)
  National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit
  National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit
  Wales (Grants)
  Wales (Grants)
  Ex-civil Servants (Pension Benefits)
  Ex-civil Servants (Pension Benefits)
  Scott Lithgow
  Scott Lithgow
DEFENCE
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Night Flying (Lights)
  Night Flying (Lights)
  Ambulance Unit (Cambridge)
  Ambulance Unit (Cambridge)
  NATO (Defence Expenditure)
  NATO (Defence Expenditure)
  US Service Men (Drugs Offences)
  US Service Men (Drugs Offences)
  European Territorial Waters (Soviet Interference)
  European Territorial Waters (Soviet Interference)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Defence Satellite
  Defence Satellite
  14th/20th Kings Hussars (Police Investigation)
  14th/20th Kings Hussars (Police Investigation)
  US Navy (Vessel Movements)
  US Navy (Vessel Movements)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Heathrow: Flight Movements
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their policy that, when Terminal 4 at Heathrow is operational, a reduction to 275,000 flight movements a year will be made if that number has been exceeded in the meantime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government have made it clear that operators will be required to restrict the number of air transport movements at Heathrow to 275,000 per annum when the fourth passenger terminal is open.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister who will decide which are the surplus movements, and where will these go? Secondly, may I also ask him how long before Terminal 4 becomes operational will those responsible for scheduling the air slots into Heathrow decide how many surplus movements there are likely to be?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not suppose that there will be many surplus movements when the day comes. The present level of movements is about 262,000 per annum—or at that rate. The number is expected to increase to about 285,000 some time next year, or perhaps later this year, and we expect that Terminal 4 will come into service some time towards the end of next year, at which point it will be necessary to reduce the number of movements, as I have said. The Government are presently considering how the allocation of movements will be awarded, but we hope very much that so far as is possible it will derive from agreement among the operators.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: But, my Lords, is the Minister aware that that is a much more rosy reply than my information would seem to indicate? Based on the figures that he has actually given, I think that that would be some 10,000 movements in excess of the 275,000 when Terminal 4 comes into operation. May I ask him where it is thought those 10,000 movements (or whatever the figure may be) will go; or are the Government proposing to leave matters until the situation actually arises and then decide that they do not have anywhere to send them?
Can the Minister answer me—because my information is to the contrary—as to who on earth is responsible for looking at this matter at the moment? Are the Government really doing it, and is it not true
792
that they are in a complete mess over it? They have not given it the consideration that is due. Finally, who will be responsible for seeing that the ceiling is adhered to? Will it be the Government, the Civil Aviation Authority, or the British Airports Authority?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the responsibility in the end will I think rest with the British Airports Authority to ensure that the number of movements is not exceeded, and the reason for that is that the number of movements is a condition attached to the planning consent granted for Terminal 4, and that consent was of course granted to the British Airports Authority. The Government expect, and hope, that this matter of the allocation of movements will be decided by the scheduling committee which already exists at Heathrow, and which has existed for some years. But the Government are considering what further assistance can be given in that regard.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Baroness is very important, and does the noble Lord recall that when we were debating the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order I referred to the fact that a number of additional domestic routes have been allowed to come into Heathrow? Therefore, is it not wise that the matter should be considered now, rather than wait until the figure of 275,000 movements is exceeded?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord; I very much hope that the matter can be resolved, or at least a plan can be agreed, before the limit formally comes into effect some time towards the end of next year. But of course it is not only a question of the number of routes that are served from Heathrow; it is also a question of the number of flights on each of the routes, and that is I think very much a matter for agreement between the operators.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that during the continuing growth of Heathrow—which is very irksome for people living under the glide path of the airport—the Government, irrespective of their political colours, have given continual assurances that the provision of an extra terminal would not in fact increase the movements? Throughout the whole of this time the movements have increased. Is it not possible for the Government here and now to be much more strict on this matter and to be quite firm in saying that routes must be redirected to other airports? The increase in movements at Heathrow simply cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is the effect of the restriction attached to the planning consent for Terminal 4; namely, that the number of movements at Heathrow after the terminal opens shall not exceed 275,000 per annum. Therefore the considerations to which the noble Lord refers were very much in the minds of Ministers when that planning consent was granted.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that a properly run airline has to plan its programmes ahead? When is the process of consultation to start, and who is going to initiate it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the scheduling committee already exists. It has existed for some years, and it consists of all the operators—or certainly the principal operators—at Heathrow, and I believe that it is already in fact considering this matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the proposed Stolport in the Surrey Docks area comes into operation, will the movements between that Stolport and Heathrow count towards the total of 275,000 movements?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the planning consent for that particular development is still under consideration and I cannot anticipate what might be the outcome of that consideration. However, I imagine—and I speak without a note on this matter— that the numbers of movements at that particular development, if it comes to pass, would be very small, and I do not think that they would form part of the figure to which I have referred.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the noble Lord agree with me just a little, as well as with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and will he accept that it is not possible suddenly to deal with 10,000 extra movements? It cannot be done if one knows about it only a week beforehand; it must be arranged in advance. Secondly, does he agree that the question of who is on the scheduling committee for arranging the slots into Heathrow is vitally important, so that we get an unbiased opinion as to which are the surplus movements? Finally, will the noble Lord answer the question that I asked him originally: which committee at present is dealing with these matters?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said, the scheduling committee is already empowered to deal with these matters. As the noble Baroness may be aware, for some years there have been restrictions of a finite kind on the night movements at Heathrow, and the scheduling committee has proved itself well able to deal with that matter. Therefore I have no reason to doubt that it will feel equally able to deal with the matter now before us. The figure of 275,000 has been public knowledge for quite a long time—since the planning consent was granted—and I do not think that anyone can suggest that he has not had adequate warning.

Bomb Attacks: London and Manchester
3.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the bomb attacks in London and Manchester during the weekend of 10th–11th March, what representations they have made to the Libyan Government, and what further action they propose to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, on Saturday 10th March five bombs were placed in various places in
794
London; two exploded, and the rest were safely dealt with by explosives disposal officers. Casualties were confined to one of the attacks, in which 26 people were injured, none seriously. The following day, Sunday 11th March, there were two bomb attacks in Manchester, in one of which three people received minor injuries. As a result of police investigations, four Libyan nationals have been charged in connection with the bombings, and a further five have been deported by order of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has told the Libyan authorities that the use of British territory for acts of terrorism is totally unacceptable, and that we expect the Libyan authorities to do everything in their power to persuade their nationals not to commit criminal acts. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he will not hesitate to make further use of his powers of deportation, if that seems appropriate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, and placing on one side matters that are now properly sub judice, may I ask whether he does not agree with me that this was only one of a series of attacks which have been made in this country on Libyan nationals? Would he not agree with me that it is necessary to emphasise to the Libyan Government that if attacks of this kind continue on the present scale, we shall not exclude the possibility of asking Libyan diplomatic representatives in this country to leave, as well as some of those who have been deported?
Lord Elton: My Lords, attacks on, and by, foreign nationals in this country occur from time to time. I entirely agree that they are deplorable, and my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary are determined to reply to them in the appropriate manner, should they continue to develop.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has indicated that his right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has made representations to the Libyan Government. Will he kindly indicate to the House what response, if any, has been received by the Libyan Government to those representations?
Noble Lords: From the Libyan Government?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from the Libyan Government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I have the drift of what the noble Lord means. The Libyan authorities denied official Libyan involvement and stated that they were unable to control the individual actions of all Libyan citizens.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although the matter is not easy, is there any further scope on the part of the immigration service to try to prevent the coming to this country of people who may be terrorists?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the immigration service is extremely vigilant and, although we have more of these incidents than we would wish, I think that we have fewer than we should otherwise have.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, even though the Libyan authorities have denied any responsibility for these outrages, can the Minister say whether there has been any expression of regret at all or, indeed, of condemnation from the Libyan authorities about them? Can he also say whether Her Majesty's Government have been able to clarify the position in regard to who is running the bureau in London and whether they are satisfied both about the identity and about the number of people at that mission?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the first question, I am not aware of expressions of regret or condemnation, but nothing should be read into that because I may not be fully up to date on the matter. As to the question of the bureau, I understand that its proceedings and status differ somewhat from some of the other diplomatic institutions in this capital. But, at the moment, that is not causing undue embarrassment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that no diplomatic recognition or immunity is granted to so-called students who from time to time take over the Libyan Embassy or whatever it is called?
Lord Elton: My Lords, a student is a student and a diplomat is a diplomat. There is no need to confuse the two wherever they reside.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, can my noble friend say, without giving anything away, whether any surveillance has been done on the Libyan schools in Chelsea which was raised several times in your Lordships' House a few years ago as a possible seat for teaching young Libyans to be terrorists? Was any action taken following this last outrage?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on reflection, I think that that question goes a fraction beyond the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the persistence and extent of these acts of international terrorism which are taking place in increasing number, is there any action that Her Majesty's Government can take through the United Nations or one of its agencies?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his suggestion which I shall pass on.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I put forward one additional point or, rather, ask one further question in the light of the noble Lord's Answer? Would he not agree that Libya has been involved over the last few years in a whole series of attacks on Libyan nationals in this country? Would he not agree that in this situation it is necessary to indicate to the Libyan Government that if this continues we shall have to ask some of the representatives of the Libyan People's Bureau in London to leave these shores?
Lord Elton: My Lords, what I can agree with in the noble Lord's pointed question is that it is utterly unacceptable for foreign nationals of any country to come to this country to kill each other. In so doing, they break the fundamental laws, liberties and securities both of visitors to this country and of British nationals. As to how to respond to this if it continues, I think that if any such warning is to be uttered, it should not be uttered by myself at this moment, but I shall see that those who might utter it read what the noble Lords says.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, cannot the Minister start by using the word "intolerable" instead of "deplorable" about these facts?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that we all agree that they are outrageous.

UK Citizens in Canada: Pensions
3.14 p.m.
Lord Stallard: 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 has been made in reaching agreement with the Canadian Government about a reciprocal agreement to increase the payment of pensions to United Kingdom citizens now domiciled in Canada.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, officials of the two Governments have been engaged in technical discussions about the possible basis of a future more comprehensive social security convention between the United Kingdom and Canada. These discussions are continuing.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, although I am not entirely satisfied at the progress that has been made. Is she aware that those pensioners referred to in my Question, all of whom have qualified in the normal way for a United Kingdom retirement pension, will not understand why we have not been able to make more progress in reaching a reciprocal agreement with Canada when we have been able to make agreements with 25 other countries including non-Commonwealth countries like Austria, Bermuda, the United States of America, Turkey and Yugoslavia, to name a few, and Commonwealth countries like Cyprus, Malaysia, Malta and Jamaica? Why do we appear to be discrim-inating against our kith and kin in Canada in this dilatory approach to reaching a reciprocal agreement with the Canadian Government which has expressed willingness on a number of occasions to reach such an agreement?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, successive governments have taken the view that our social security system is designed primarily for people living in this country. The cost of increasing pensions falls mainly on contributors and employers here and it would be unreasonable to ask them to bear the cost of increases paid to people who have left the country.

797
In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question, it is perfectly true that, as a result of the United Kingdom's commitments under the Treaty of Rome, full unfreezing applies to pensioners anywhere in the EC. In addition, increases are payable in various other European countries under conventions between the United Kingdom and the country concerned, but these latter conventions are for the most part long-standing.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, while accepting that these anomalies have persisted under successive governments, does not the noble Baroness understand that, while she is affirming that these pensions should apply to people in this country, it is very difficult for Canadians to understand why there are 26 other countries including the United States of America which are exempt from these restrictions? Can she also confirm that pensioners from the Civil Service and the armed forces are allowed to receive their upgradings wherever they decide to live?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Baroness's question, the question of the United States of America is a different one from that on the Order Paper. With regard to the second part of her remarks, I have listened with interest.
Lord Banks: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there is any particular difficulty that is preventing agreement being reached with Canada?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said at the beginning, conversations are still continuing.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend inform me whether similar consultations are continuing with Australia, in view of previous answers given in this House that there are even more people in this category in Australia than in Canada?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, Australia does not appear in the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that I asked a similar Question some months ago and was told that this was a question of Government expenditure? Are the pensions that are due to pensioners who, for example, go to stay or to live with their children in Canada not their own money—money that has been contributed throughout their working lives? Is it not another example of this Government's meanness towards the poorer sections of the community that they are not allowed to draw their full pension if they emigrate to a country like Canada?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.

Spectacles: NHS Provision
3.19 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people will be affected by their decision to end the subsidised provision of NHS spectacles except for children and those on supplementary benefits and, within this total, how many retirement pensioners will be affected.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in the year after March 1985 some three million people who would at present be entitled to receive an average subsidy of £5 on lenses supplied under the general ophthalmic service, will become private patients. Information on how many are retirement pensioners is not available.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her Reply, does this not reveal a very disturbing situation? Will not the noble Baroness accept that, in order to save £17 million, the Government have decided that 64 per cent. of NHS optical patients will cease to be eligible for NHS spectacles, lenses and frames? Since a high proportion of these are pensioners and since pensioners are seeing their income go down in relation to earnings, does she not feel some concern on behalf of the Government? With the increase in prescription charges and dental charges, is not this just another attack upon the services provided by the National Health Service?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it really is beyond me why the noble Lord rejoices in being a prophet of doom and gloom. In four years' time he, too, will become a pensioner. Our proposals to relax the opticians' monopoly and to allow advertising will increase competition. A competitive market is the best price regulator. The important point is that people should get the glasses that they need. It does not follow that the state should supply them.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have here in my hand a pair of glasses acquired without the benefit of the National Health Service; acquired without the benefit of prescription; and acquired from an unauthorised purveyor? Is she also aware that they cost me £7·50 and that they suit me to a "T"? Is it not the case that by far and away the best thing we could do for the overwhelming majority of pensioners would be to allow them to acquire spectacles in exactly the same manner as I have acquired these?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I hope that his specs fit him to an "I".
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as a long-standing pensioner. Is the noble Baroness aware that large numbers of people have operations for cataracts and similar eye diseases, and that they therefore have to use very special lenses which are very expensive? Furthermore, is she also aware that they have to wear them and get them on the

799
National Health Service on medical grounds, otherwise in many cases they would be totally blind? What will happen to such people under the provisions of the Government's new Bill?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, a tiny minority of about 4 per cent. are subsidised by £10 or more because they need more powerful or complex lenses. We are considering the possibility of helping them without subsidising those on substantial incomes who are well able to afford their glasses.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does not the answer which the noble Baroness has just given mean that she is going to add another means test? Why should this be the case? Is it not grossly unfair to elderly pensioners—whether or not they have to wait four years like me; and I do not know whether it is in the interests of the House that my age should be revealed across the Dispatch Box—that they all of a sudden now find that they are going to have to pay, in some cases, much more? It has nothing to do with competition. Would the noble Baroness not agree that this is very unfair to the pensioners?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, I would not. Free spectacles as of right are at present given to the following categories: the under 16s; the over 16s and under 19s still in full-time education; those receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement; those receiving free milk and vitamins and/or free prescriptions on income grounds. I only revealed the noble Lord's age because mine is the same.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness on appearing so much younger than she is? Why are the unemployed not included on her list?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, because they do not fall into the categories that exist.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bellwin, will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the future of the Inner London Education Authority.
Standard Chartered Bank Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House of Lords Offices
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report was as follows:
1. Chairmanship of Sub-Committees
The Committee agreed that the Chairmen of those of its Sub-Committees of which the Chairman of Committees is not Chairman ex officio should be appointed by the Committee.
2. Security
The Committee approved a recommendation for an increase of four Police Constables in the complement of the Security Force and the increased provision necessary to meet the cost.
3. Printing of Parliamentary Papers
The Committee approved a Report from the Administration Sub-Committee recommending that the Stationery Office be authorised to print Select Committee Reports, Bills, Amendments and Acts on A4 size paper. The implementation of this recommendation should be contingent upon the approval of the House of Commons to the introduction of similar changes in that House.
The Committee also approved recommendations that certain miscellaneous House publications, such as the Companion to Standing Orders, should retain their present size and layout and that Amendments should retain their present similarity in layout to Bills.
4. Records of the House
The Committee took note of the appointment of an informal Joint Committee to assess the need for accommodation for the House of Lords Record Office and the Libraries of both Houses. The Committee approved provision for additional staff costs and expenses arising from the work of the Joint Committee.
5. Insurance for Lords
The Committee approved an increase in the personal accident insurance cover for Lords whilst on Parliamentary duty.
6. Parliamentary delegations
The Committee approved provision for the payment of revised subsistence allowances for Lords travelling as delegates of the House to meetings of the Assemblies of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance.
The Committee also sanctioned provision for the payment of expenses of Lords travelling as representatives of the House to meetings of other parliamentary assemblies.
7. Computer courses
The Committee approved provision for computer courses for Lords.
8. Telephones
The Committee approved the proposed arrangements for the installation of a new Telephone Exchange and authorised provision for a proportionate share of the cost.
9. Staff of the House
An oral report from the Sub-Committee on the Staff of the House was received. The Committee agreed to a recommendation that an additional Staff Inspector post be created.
10. Counsel to Chairman of Committees
The Committee authorised the regrading of the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees and Legal Adviser to the Ecclesiastical Committee, Mr. D. Rippengal, C.B., Q.C., on a personal basis.
11. Parliament Office
The Committee authorised the creation of a third post of Sub-Editor of Debates and approved the temporary appointment of a second Assistant Accountant.
The Committee were notified of the appointment of Mr. A. J. Phelps, C.B., as a temporary Senior Clerk.
12. Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod
The Committee approved a revised salary scale for the Assistant Superintendent.
13. Revised scale of pay
The Committee confirmed the application of Civil Service Guide Memorandum GM/304 introducing revised fees for academic consultants.
14. Hansard Reporting Staff
The Committee authorised:

(i) Revised late night attendance fees and allowances for permanent Editors and Reporters;

(ii) Revised attendance fees for temporary reporters and transcribers;

(iii) Revised charges for the supply of typists for the reporting of Debates.

15. Official Shorthand Writer
The Committee approved provision for the reimbursement of a share of the cost of additional accommodation expenses incurred by the Shorthand Writer.
16. Reporting of Law Lords' Opinions
The Committee approved new arrangements with the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for the editing of the opinions of Lords of Appeal and the fee payable for this work.
17. Superannuation
The Committee were notified of the following awards:

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mr. A. Quiney, Judicial Doorkeeper, who retired on 18th January 1984.

(b) Pension and lump sum to Miss K. M. Owen, Clerical Officer, who retired on 1st February 1984.

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mr. K. P. Vesey, Reporter, who retired on 1st March 1984.

(d) Preserved Pension and lump sum to Mrs. E. C. Dewdney-Herbert, Senior Personal Secretary, who resigned on 28th October 1983.

(e) Preserved Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. E. Kemp, Bar Attendant, who resigned on 6th January 1984.

(f) Revised Pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. McEvoy, Housemaid, who retired on 1st December 1983.

(g) Revised Pension and lump sum to Mrs. C. Mason, Housemaid, who retired on 5th February 1984.

(h) Short service payment to Mr. J. H. D. Scourfield, Clerk, who resigned on 9th January 1984.

(i) Short service payment to Mr. L. Shand, Clerical Officer, who resigned on 2nd December 1983.

(j) Short service payment to Mrs. L. Channing, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 2nd March 1984.

(k) Short service payment to Mr. G. Osborne, Kitchen Porter, who resigned on 2nd March 1984.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Building Control Bill
3.24 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Housing and Building Control Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): 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 Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Extension to certain cases where landlord does not own freehold]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, after ("of) insert ("not less than").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 1 is the first of a large number of minor and technical amendments tabled by the Government. I apologise to your Lordships for the number of amendments involved, but I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that for most of the provisions in the Bill this is the last opportunity we shall have to discuss them.
We have heard on numerous occasions during its time in your Lordships' House, about the drafting. We have tried to improve it—I hope with some success—and not without a little assistance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, to whom I am
802
very grateful. I hope that your Lordships would agree that we should continue those efforts, even at this late stage. Of necessity some of the tidying up can only sensibly be done when we have before us the more or less final version of the Bill.
The vast majority of the Government amendments before the House today have no policy implications whatever. They are designed to improve the drafting, or to correct printing errors or cross-references, or to ensure consistency throughout the Bill and with the 1980 Act—for example, in providing transitional arrangements where the existing 1980 Act rules are being changed. With your Lordships' permission, therefore. I should like to move Amendment No. 1 and then to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc and also deal with various other amendments. If any explanation should be required of any one of those amendments, then as we reach them I shall be glad to endeavour to provide more details. My Lords, in addition to Amendment No. 1, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 19, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 20, after ("Act") insert ("(except paragraph 10)").
Amendment No. 3: Page 5, line 36, after ("section") insert ("and section 15 of that Act (children succeeding parents)").
Amendment No. 4: Page 6, line 5, leave out ("For subsection (4)") and insert ("In subsection (2)").
Amendment No. 5: Page 6, line 6, leave out first ("the").
Amendment No. 6: Page 6, line 6, after ("dwelling-house)") insert ("after the words "by virtue of there shall be inserted the words "sub-section (4) below or".
(2A) For subsection (4) of that section").
Amendment No. 8: Page 11, line 36, after ("grant") insert ("or, in the case of a grant for a term of less than twenty-one years, during that term").
Amendment No. 11: Page 12, line 41, leave out from ("him") to end of line 43.
Amendment No. 14: Page 20, line 38, after ("available") insert ("annual").
Amendment No. 19: Page 31, line 22, leave out second ("of) and insert ("to").
Amendment No. 22: Page 37, line 7, after (" 104B") insert ("(2)").
Amendment No. 27: Page 38, line 25, leave out ("the").
Amendment No. 28: Page 54, line 14, leave out ("Buildings") and insert ("Building").
Amendment No. 29: Page 69, line 8, leave out ("(in this paragraph referred to as "the former tenant")").
Amendment No. 30: Page 69, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Amendment No. 37: Page 78, line 5, leave out ("the value at the time of the disposal").
Amendment No. 38: Page 78, line 8, after first ("dwelling-house") insert ("the value at the time of the disposal").
Amendment No. 39: Page 78, line 10, after ("case") insert ("the value at the time of the disposal").
Amendment No. 45: Page 78, line 29, leave out ("or") and insert ("shall be £10 per annum; and").
Amendment No. 49: Page 85, line 24, after first ("compulsory") insert ("purchase").
Amendment No. 50: Page 86, line 25, leave out second ("the") and insert ("that").
Amendment No. 51: Page 94, line 35, at end insert—
("Interpretation
In this Schedule expressions used in Part I of this Act have the same meanings as in that Part.").
Amendment No. 52: Page 96, line 5, at end insert—
("5A. Section 4(3) of that Act (joint tenants and members of family occupying dwelling-house otherwise than as joint tenants)

803
shall have effect as if the reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act.").
Amendment No. 53: Page 96, line 6, at beginning insert ("(1)").
Amendment No. 54: Page 96, line 8, at end insert—
("(2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement of Part I of this Act.").
Amendment No. 56: Page 96, line 12, at end insert— ("(1A) In subsection (2) of that section for the words "section 7(5)" there shall be substituted the words "section 7(1)" and for the words "section 7(2) or (4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 7(1A), (2) or (4).".").
Amendment No. 57: Page 96, line 34, leave out ("amendment made by subparagraph (2) above") and insert ("amendments made by this paragraph").
Amendment No. 60: Page 97, line 7, leave out paragraph 11.
Amendment No. 61: Page 99, line 33, at end insert— ("18A.—
(1) In subsection (2) of section 24 of that Act (vesting orders) for the words "the landlord and the tenant and their successors in title" there shall be substituted the words "both the landlord and its successors in title and the tenant and his successors in title (including any person deriving title under him or them)".
(2) That section shall have effect as if any reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act.").
Amendment No. 62: Page 99, leave out line 35.
Amendment No. 63: Page 101, line 22, leave out ("(2A)").
Amendment No. 64: Page 103, line 23, after ("words") insert (" "Section 7(3) to (6)".").
Amendment No. 65: Page 104, line 1, leave out ("subsection (5) of section 2") and insert ("section 2(5)").
Amendment No. 66: Page 104, line 3, leave out ("repeal of subsections (5) to (11) of section 7 of that Act has") and insert ("repeals of section 7(5) to (11) and 15 of that Act have").
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I shall then put the Question on Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment Nos. 2 to 6:
[Printed above. ]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Repayment of discount on early disposal]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 46, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above it shall be assumed that any option to renew or extend a lease or sub-lease, whether or not forming part of a series of options, is exercised, and that any option to terminate a lease or sub-lease is not exercised").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, highlighted a possible loophole in the provisions governing repayment of discount which I undertook to consider further. I hope that this amendment and Amendments Nos. 36 and 48 will meet with your Lordships' approval:
Amendment No. 36: Page 76, line 38, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above it shall be assumed that any option to renew or extend a lease or sub-lease, whether or not forming part of a series of options, is exercised, and that any option to terminate a lease or sub-lease is not exercised").
Amendment No. 48: Page 85, line 9, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above it shall be assumed that any option to renew or extend a lease or sub-lease, whether or not forming part of a series of options, is exercised, and that any option to terminate a lease or sub-lease is not exercised").
Clause 5 of the Bill amends Section 8 of the 1980 Act, which relates to the repayment of discount on early disposal of the dwelling-house. Certain categories
804
of disposal are exempt under the 1980 Act and one purpose of Clause 5 is to add to the list of exempted categories of disposal.
Clause 5 retains the 1980 Act criterion that a disposal is denned as:

"(a) a further conveyance of the freehold or an assignment of the lease; or

(b) the grant of a lease or sub-lease for a term of more than twenty-one years otherwise than at a rack rent".

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, pointed out, it would be possible for a tenant who has bought his home under the right to buy to get round the discount clawback provisions by granting a lease for less than 21 years with an option to renew, which would take the total period above 21 years.
The object of these amendments is to stop that loophole which they do, in effect, by providing that for the purpose of asserting whether a lease is for more than 21 years, it shall be assumed that any option to extend or renew the lease is exercised, and that any option to terminate the lease is not exercised. Anyone granting a lease for less than 21 years with an option to extend or renew will therefore be caught by the discount clawback provisions.
The amendment to Clause 5 deals with disposals in outright right-to-buy cases; that to Schedule 3 with disposals in shared ownership cases: and the amendment to Schedule 6 in voluntary sales. I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for highlighting this loophole and I hope that he, together with your Lordships, will approve of the action that we have taken. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the noble Lord the Minister. He referred very flatteringly to me; but, in fact, this amendment is far better than my shot at it. In particu-lar, the last phrase closes a minor loophole which I had not spotted. I simply desire to say that, in addition, I have written to the noble Lord—he will not yet have received the letter because I only received his letter in the country yesterday—about further methods which might be used of evading these controls both in subsection (3) and subsection (3A). I do not want to advertise them, but perhaps the noble Lord would keep an eye open for them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Dwelling-houses suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("of the tenant (or his successor in title)") and insert ("to be reconveyed or surrendered").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have grouped these amendments as they are all concerned with the valuation assumptions to be made in the Bill. They remove an ambiguity in the expression "tenant's interest" used in the different valuation provisions in

805
the Bill. 1 shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13.
Amendment No. 10: Page 12, line 18, leave out ("tenant (or his successor)") and insert ("vendor").
Amendment No. 12: Clause 9, page 13, line 25, leave out ("of the tenant (or his successor in title)") and insert ("to be reconveyed or surrendered").
Amendment No. 13: Page 13, line 28, leave out ("tenant (or his successor)") and insert ("vendor").
These amendments deal with the amount to be paid by the landlord when he exercises his right of pre-emption under Section 18A or Section 19 of the Housing Act 1980. Under the pre-emption covenant the tenant is obliged to reconvey the freehold of the dwelling-house or surrender his lease. The amendments make it clear that what is to be valued is the interest to be reconveyed to the landlord or surrendered.
The second group of amendments are Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44.
Amendment No. 31: Schedule 3, Page 74, line 44, after ("any") insert ("morgages of that interest and any").
Amendment No. 32: Page 74, line 45, leave out ("tenant and disregarding") and insert ("vendor and disregarding—

(a) any interest in or rights over the dwelling-house created by the tenant;

(b) ").

Amendment No. 33: Page 75, line 1, after ("and") insert ("(c)").
Amendment No. 34: Page 75, line 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
Amendment No. 35: Page 75, line 5, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(ii)").
Amendment No. 40: Page 78, line 17, after ("any") insert ("mortgages of that interest and any").
Amendment No. 41: Page 78, line 18, leave out ("tenant and disregarding") and insert ("vendor and disregarding—

(a) any interests in or rights over the dwelling-house created by the tenant;

(b) ").

Amendment No. 42: Page 78, line 20, after ("and") insert ("(c)").
Amendment No. 43: Page 78, line 22, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
Amendment No. 44: Page 78, line 24, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
These amendments deal with the calculation of the amount to be paid by the tenant under a shared ownership lease when he acquires additional shares under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Bill or accounts for outstanding shares under paragraph 7. The amendments ensure that the amount payable is not affected by the tenant's mortgage or by any interest in or rights over the dwelling-house which he has created. Clearly, it would be wrong if the tenant was able to depress the value of the property which is used as the basis of calculating that amount by mortgaging it or granting a sub-lease. The amendments make it clear that these transactions are to be disregarded in valuing the property.
The final amendments are Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
Amendment No. 46: Schedule 5, page 84, line 14, leave out ("of the mortgagor in the dwelling-house") and insert ("vested in the authority").
Amendment No. 47: Page 84, line 16, leave out from ("that") to end of line 20 and insert ("any prior incumbrances to which the vesting is not made subject would be discharged by the vendor").
These amendments deal with the amount to be set aside by an authority under paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Bill to meet mortgages and other charges on the
806
dwelling-house when the tenant defaults on his mortgage and the authority, instead of exercising its powers of sale under the mortgage, vests the property in itself under Clause 20. The amendments ensure that the interest to be acquired by the authority under Schedule 5 is valued, but also takes account of the liability of the authority under paragraph 3(3)(a) of Schedule 5 to discharge prior incumbrances which are not overreached when the property vests in the authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 10:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 14.
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Further advances in the case of certain voluntary disposals.
. Where—

(a) a lease of a dwelling-house granted otherwise than in pursuance of this Part of this Act contains a provision to the like effect as that required by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act; and

(b) a body specified in section 19(3) above has, in the exercise of any of its powers, left outstanding or advanced any amount on the security of the dwelling-house,

that power shall include power to advance further amounts for the purpose of assisting the tenant to make payments in pursuance of that provision.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for bringing forward these amendments at such a late stage but they are needed to meet a point about the lending powers of public sector bodies. With this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 18:
Amendment No. 18: Clause 24, transpose Clause 24 to after Clause 22.
This point concerns voluntary shared-ownership leases. By way of example, on the disposal of a legal estate or interest in a dwelling by, among other bodies, a registered housing association to an individual who intends to occupy it, the Housing Corporation can lend to assist the purchase. Similarly, other public sector bodies have a power on a disposal of a dwelling-house to leave the purchase price outstanding on mortgage. Where the disposal is under a shared-ownership lease, however, it needs to be made clear that this power includes the power to lend on the later requisition by the shared-ownership lessee of further shares. The new clause is intended to achieve this classification.
The clause covers the various bodies mentioned in Clause 19(3)—principally local authorities, new towns

807
and the Housing Corporation—and ensures that loans on voluntary shared-ownership leases may be made on a similar footing to loans on shared-ownership leases granted under the right to shared-ownership contained in Part I of the Bill. In other words this is purely a tidying-up amendment which I hope will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Consent to certain voluntary disposals]:
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 28. line 4, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 17.
Amendment No. 17: Page 28, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line.
Perhaps I may give a little of the background as to why these amendments have been brought forward, and certainly at such a late stage. In fact, they were table only last night. This clause raised a number of problems, and was discussed at the Report stage, when the point about subsection (4) was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised the question whether the whole of the clause was necessary. At that time on several occasions the Minister, as reported in Hansard, said that he would want to look at it again. At Col. 1444 on 22nd March he said:
"If we have it wrong in the drafting … in view of what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, and especially in view of what was said by the noble and learned Lord"—
which was in fact mainly concerned with subsection (4), which I seek to remove—
"I shall want to look at it again. It is merely a question of how we do it. We can withdraw the amendment now and reinstate it, or pass it now with my undertaking that I will look at it again—and your Lordships know that …"
and the rest is not so relevant.
Later on I suggested:
"If, as the Minister said, he is quite willing to accept either method of handling this problem, my noble friends and myself would be happier if, at this stage, he withdrew the amendment."
I ought to make it clear that this was not a clause that was in the Bill; it was a clause which would have amended the Bill.
Then, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said:
"I merely desire to say that whether the clause goes in with the undertaking which the Minister has given—and which, of course, we take unreservedly—that he will look at the points again, or whether the amendment is now withdrawn and reintroduced at a later stage, seems to me to be marginal."
"However, in view of what the noble Earl said concerning his doubts as to the value of this clause at all. I should have thought that the balance was slightly on the side of withdrawal."
Later—and I have told the Minister in advance that I would be raising this point—I had a word with the Minister, who admitted that he was under the misapprehension that this had in fact been discussed with the local authority associations. He was then told that it had not been, and he said that he was sorry that this was so but he would in fact see that it was discussed, and the matter was left. Certainly my noble
808
friends and I felt that the Government would come forward with an amendment, or at the very least that there would be a letter explaining why the Government wanted to leave it like this, in time for us to be able to consider it again either singly or together, or for me to have had a chance to have a word with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
In the event nothing occurred. When I realised that the Government had not put down an amendment by late yesterday I phoned the office, and I then quickly put down the two amendments on the Marshalled List. The first amendment deals with the question of the subsection which allows the Secretary of State to make any condition that he sees fit. The subsection states:
"Any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit to impose."
But there is a subsection that follows which appears to take in almost anything that one could imagine would be necessary in order to deal with this point. Subsection (5) says:
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above"—
this is the subsection dealing with any such conditions that the Secretary of State sees fit to impose—
"any such consent may be given subject to conditions as to the price, premium or rent to be obtained on a disposal … including conditions as to the amount by which, on a disposal of such a dwelling-house by way of sale or by the grant or assignment of a lease at a premium, the price or premium is to be, or may be, discounted by the local authority."
I should have thought that that really took in everything that was needed. If anything else was needed, then I feel that the Government should have come forward with an amendment or addendum to that particular subsection and not have fallen back on subsection (4) which again gives to the Secretary of State enormously unlimited powers.
I am aware that this subsection is taken from the 1957 Act. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said at Report, at col. 1444:
"The Minister made good that there were precedents. Any lawyer loves a precedent, but a precedent is not always a good precedent."
What happens is that these precedents go through Bill after Bill and become statutory, and so what may either be something that has worn out its existence or was not good in the first place anyhow becomes embedded in every piece of legislation. Therefore, despite the long letter that I received, but which did not reach me until this morning, and which was a copy of a letter sent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I would say that I do not think that even the reasons given there are satisfactory for the retention either of this clause or certainly of that subsection, taking into account subsection (5) which appears to cover the case quite sufficiently. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I only desire to add this point, which the noble Baroness did not deal with. I entirely agree with her about subsection (4), and I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for writing to me about it. I got the letter only today, but that is because I only came up today. I should like to add a word about subsection (7) which takes most drastic steps, going so far as to render void a conveyance to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any invalidity on the part of the local authority. That seems to me to be going altogether too far.

809
Certainly in his letter the noble Lord the Minister quoted again the precedents. I can only say that they were thoroughly bad precedents and merely showed that Parliament was not awake at the time. It is now awake to the mischief, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to reconsider this matter. The only opportunity I can see of reconsideration is by carrying this amendment; otherwise, as I understand it, the other place will not have an opportunity for reconsideration.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I say first that I think apologies are due to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The information came to her late; it should have come sooner. We should make no bones about that at all, and I say so without any hesitation. I am sorry that it happened. I hope she will agree that it is something that does not too often happen in the legislation with which I deal.
If I may speak about the amendments themselves, I think I have to take a few moments to do this carefully, and indeed to quote from parts of the correspondence that has been mentioned, so as to explain to your Lordships quite why the Government take the line which they do on this matter. It is quite right, as the noble Baroness said, that I undertook to look at the clause again. I assure her that we did that. Usually that is taken to mean that we shall do something to alter it, but I think she would agree that it does not always mean that. I try to do so whenever I can. On this occasion I have not been able to.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say much of what was in the letter, which I feel I need to do. The problem which this clause seeks to address is that there is at present nothing to stop a landlord disposing of his interest in land held, other than under general housing powers, to a body other than the secure tenant. By doing so the landlord can effectively frustrate a tenant's application to exercise his right to buy. Clause 24 therefore proposes a new control over the disposal of such land where it is left on a secure tenancy or under a right-to-buy lease. It is, in essence, a simplified version of the existing provisions given in the disposal of Part V land.
The noble Baroness's amendments would delete subsection (4), which provides that any consent under the clause—
"may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State sees fit to impose"—
and make a consequent adjustment to subsection (5). The argument here is that the power is too widely drawn, as the noble Baroness said. Although I accept that the power is a wide one, as I said in my letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, we have felt after further consideration that it is right to leave the proposal as it stands, for the following reasons: First, the Secretary of State's concern in imposing conditions under this provision will be to protect the interests of the secure tenant or right-to-buy leaseholder with a tenancy of the land.
The most effective way of doing so will vary with individual circumstances. It may be appropriate to make it a condition of consent that any secure tenant
810
should be provided by the disposing landlord with an alternative secure tenancy. Again it may be more appropriate to impose conditions on the disposal to preserve the tenant's right to purchase on terms equivalent to those available to him under Chapter I of the 1980 Act.
The types of disposal which can arise are themselves very wide-ranging, as we have learned from our experience with the consent provisions in the 1957 Act. For example, we have had to consider cases where the council wishes to dispose of its freehold interest in a block of flats to a co-operative of leaseholders of flats in the block. Although such a disposal may seem desirable in principle, arrangements to protect the interests of all parties concerned are by no means straightforward. We need to consider the implications of a disposal for the statutory rights of any secure tenants in the block under Chapters I and II of the 1980 Act. We need to consider the implications for the statutory provisions in Schedule 2 to the Act governing the terms of any right-to-buy leases which may have been granted in the block. We need to consider the implications for the discount repayment covenant which will have been imposed under Section 8 of the Act on any right-to-buy lease.
In all this we need to ensure that the statutory rights and liabilities of secure tenants and leaseholders are protected. But we need to be in a position to do so in a flexible way which makes sense in relation to the disposal proposed. That is why I think a wide-ranging power on the lines of subsection (4) is desirable. A power along these lines is well precedented. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said—and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reminded us today—that that does not of itself mean the precedent is good. If one looks at its use, I suppose one would have to differ as to its effectiveness. The form of words in subsection (4) does follow that in Section 104A(2) of the Housing Act 1957 as inserted by Section 92 of the 1980 Act.
I think I ought to point out the fact that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, a purchaser who has entered into a transaction in good faith may subsequently find that transaction is void; and this is the effect of subsection (7), if a council makes an illegal disposal without the requisite consent. There are two points I should like to make in response to that point. First, what alternative provision would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggest? We could, of course provide that a purchaser obtained good title even if the disposal was made without consent. But where would that leave the tenant? He too has an interest in these matters. He would have effectively forfeited his right to buy as a result of an illegal action taken by his landlord. I wonder if it can be right that the transaction should nonetheless be upheld.
Secondly, we must remember that we are not here talking about disposals to individuals. They are not covered by the provision in subsection (7). In any illegal transaction rendered void by this provision, the purchaser is likely to be a company or corporation or other institution. I should be surprised to learn that bodies of that kind acquire property without having taken competent legal advice. It follows that I really would not expect there to be bona fide transactions which were rendered void by this provision.

811
I hope I have said enough adequately to explain the Government's position on this provision. As I have said, we did very carefully consider the points which were raised at Report stage. I am concerned in particular that what is proposed in this provision should be consistent with the controls over the disposal of Part V housing which are already embodied in legislation. In view of what was said, I will not make the point again about the precedent, but I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, may perhaps feel that the amendment should not be in the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, may I ask: am I not right in thinking that the only way in which further consideration can be given is by accepting this amendment?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is correct.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of the reply, may I say right away that I of course accept the apology from the Minister. He is quite right, it does not very often happen and anybody can slip up; but it has made things difficult. One of the things it did, I am afraid, was not to give me sufficient time to be able to frame an amendment on subsection (7), which was the other very strong point made on Report, I thought, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and repeated today. It was really the point to get something in by way of an amendment in order to raise the whole matter. I do not think that the reply is entirely satisfactory. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that there should be an opportunity for the other place to have a look at this, and therefore I intend to press the amendment.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
3.55 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Denington, B.

Amherst, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Attlee, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ennals, L.

Beswick, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Ezra, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bottomley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brockway, L.

Galpern, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of

Grimond, L.

Kelvingrove, L.

Hale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Collison, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

David, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hayter, L.

Delacourt-Smith of

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Alteryn, B.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

812

Hunt, L.

Phillips, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Plant, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jacques, L.

[Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Rea, L.

Kagan, L.

Rochester, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Seear, B.

Leatherland, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Listowel, E.

Serota, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of

Shaughnessy, L.

Hastoe, B.

Simon, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stallard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Mar, C.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Milford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Monson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mulley, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Oram, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Gisborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glanusk, L.

Alport, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ampthill, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Auckland, L.

Gormanston, V.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Bathurst, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Bellwin, L.

Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Hawke, L.

Belstead, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hood, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jessel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Killearn, L.

Chelwood, L.

Kimberley, L.

Chesham, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cockfield, L.

Leathers, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lloyd, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Loudoun, C.

Craigavon, V.

Lovat, L.

Craigton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lyell, L.

Cromartie, E.

McFadzean, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Marley, L.

De Freyne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

De La Warr, E.

Avon, L.

Denham, L.

Melville, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ely, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Forester, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Pennock, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Penrhyn, L.

813

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Somers, L.

Plummer of St

Spens, L.

Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Porritt, L.

Strathcona and Mount

Portland, D.

Royal, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathspey, L.

Reigate, L.

Suffield, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller. ]

Romney, E.

Terrington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Trenchard, V.

Sandford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandys, L.

Vaizey, L.

Savile, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selkirk, E.

Vickers, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

4.6 p.m.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
[Printed earlier. ]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission of the House, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc as they are consequential. 1 beg to move.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
(" .—(1) Any secure tenant within the meaning of this Act shall be entitled to a report on the condition of their dwelling from an environmental health officer, a copy of which shall be submitted to the landlord within 28 days of the date of inspection.
(2) It shall be the duty of the local authority to carry out the works specified in that report necessary to remedy the defects, in such time as is reasonable being not more than 6 months from the date of consideration of the report.
(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing, the local authority may give an undertaking to carry out the works specified in the report in subsection (1) above as part of a programme of repairs and that undertaking shall include that the works of repair shall be completed by 12 months from the date of consideration of the report.
(4) Where a local authority fail to consider the report under subsection (1) above within 42 days of receipt of that report, or

(i) fail to carry out the works of repair specified as in subsection (2) above; or

(ii) fail to give an undertaking as in subsection (3) above, the tenant may make a complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction who may, if satisfied that the local authority has not complied with the requirements of this section, and that the works specified are reasonable, direct the local authority to carry out those works of repair to bring the dwelling up to a reasonable standard to safeguard the health and well being of the tenant.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment ties up with one that I moved at an earlier stage. The Minister wrote to me, but I did not find the answer very satisfactory, so I want to put some further points before him.
The new clause as drawn provides a course of action for secure tenants who might be unable or unwilling to exercise the right of repair. This may be because of lack of finance, inadequacy of cost limits of the scheme or the complexity of the administration. In fact, in the letter I was given a number of people and told that they could ask their neighbours. I should like to suggest that the neighbours might follow even less than the person doing the complaining. This is particularly important
814
for the elderly because they may not wish to exercise the right of repair. It is clear that in law owners and tenants in the private sector are subject to the full range of the public health and housing legislation whereas tenants of the local authority sector generally are not. Tenants in the private sector can call in the local authority or environmental health officer to deal through statutory action with poor repair, dampness, lack of amenities and unfitness. The same is not possible for the secure tenant.
This is confirmed by the Housing Act legislation, at least in the recent case of Regina v. Cardiff' City Council, where it was determined that authorities cannot prosecute themselves under Part II of the Housing Act 1957. Clearly local authority tenants are not totally without redress. They can lay a complaint before the local magistrates' court under Section 99 of the Public Health Act 1976 if a house is in bad condition, is bad for their health and is a statutory nuisance. Secondly, there is a procedure under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1957 whereby, if a tenant can persuade a local Justice of the Peace that the house is unfit to live in, the JP makes written representation to a local authority and the local authority then must take action. However, there is a limit to such remedies and there still remains a wide gulf between private tenants and secure tenants.
I have grave reservations about tenants having to pay for their own repairs and I believe that insufficient use is made of the expertise of local authority environ-mental health officers in investigating defects in council buildings. While the best solution to council house repairs is planned maintenance—I think everybody will agree with that—the environmental health officer's involvement at an early stage under this clause could allow the simplest possible schemes to ensure that the work is carried out properly. That would reduce the overall burden on local authorities.
This new clause would achieve a twofold aim. First, it would ensure that the expertise of the EHOs in assessing defects in houses was fully utilised. Secondly, it would give council house tenants access to environ-mental health services. While this still does not give the secure tenants of these houses the same protection as exists under the housing legislation for tenants in the private sector, I hope that if the amendment is accepted it will redress the balance a little.
The new clause also makes use of the magistrates' courts method of arbitration. The time periods given are not unrealistic and will ensure that council houses do not fall into further disrepair. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I simply say from this side of the House that we are grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us yet another opportunity of looking at the vital subject of tenants' rights. We are sympathetic to the new clause. The Minister may be able to tell us that there is no need for it because, written in the small print in the various other bits of the enactment, there are matters that can take care of it. I do not think that the House can listen too often to the disparity between what, as we would call him. a "good" landlord does and what even a good landlord tries to do but fails to do; and the net sufferers are the poor people, the people who are defenceless, in trying

815
to get what you and I would say surely are rights—that is, to live in a safe and healthy house.
The House will be aware that from this side of the Chamber we sought, unsuccessfully, to put some teeth into the Government's legislation on the right-to-repair clauses; and like the noble Baroness we do not like the implication in the Government legislation that, quite possibly, a part of the cost of a repair could fall upon the tenant. If the tenancy is right, then the obligation is to make sure that the property is kept in good order, and kept in good order fairly swifty, if a defect occurs that ought to be remedied. Sadly, one of the defects of the Government legislation is that, under the guidelines which have been issued, it is quite possible that there is not going to be sufficient incentive for the tenants to use what would appear to be rights.
If, in fact, all that a tenant gets is 75 per cent., 80 per cent. or 85 per cent., that shortfall can still be too much for someone who is quite poorly off. I am not trying to pre-empt what the Minister might say is already taken care of as far as the aspirations here are concerned. The noble Baroness used the right phrase, too: planned maintenance by a good landlord, whether public or private, ought to obviate all but the emergency situations. We on this side will listen with care to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I should like to express my personal gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for putting down this amendment. When I read it, I was so pleased that I thought how very silly I had been not to have put it down myself. I feel very strongly that what she has got down here will be an absolute blessing to (I regret to say) hundreds, if not thousands, of local authority tenants who are not able to use the procedures that, until very recently, I thought that they could use. They cannot call in the environmental health officer; or, they could call him in, but he cannot take any action. He cannot get the case to the courts because the environmental officer and the housing department are all part of the local authority and one cannot be acting against the other. And I regret to say how many local authorities fail in their duties.
Only last week, a woman who is a local authority tenant was talking to me. She has had rain coming through her roof for six months. It has been seen. It is well known. The authority has twice sent men to have a look at it and they say, "Oh, yes!" and nothing happens. She cannot do anything; nobody can do anything. This amendment, it seems to me, will remedy that situation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on behalf of so many thousands of people (as he knows full well) will accept this amendment and do something really tremendously helpful for all these people.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have again listened with great interest to my noble friend Lady Vickers. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, at Report stage rightly pointed out that the courts have ruled that, as the law now stands, council housing authorities cannot serve public health or other statutory notices on themselves. From that advantage point, and, I might say to the noble Lord, Lord
816
Graham, irrespective of the new right to repair which does not actually come within the purview of this amendment, my noble friend wants to put an obligation on councils to look at what tenants themselves consider to be unsatisfactory living conditions. She has chosen the route of involving the environmental health officers and the formal approach of preparation of reports and the subsequent series of time-limited duties on councils.
I remain unconvinced that these statutory arrangements are necessary. Any secure tenant can already go to his landlord and complain about the unsatisfactory condition of his dwelling. In most cases, such landlords have duties under Section 32 of the 1961 Housing Act to keep in repair the exterior and structure of their properties and to maintain the installations for various basic services. If a landlord who has been notified fails to remedy a defect, then the tenant can pursue his case through the courts by exercising his rights to ask for specific performance of a repair under Section 125(1) of the 1974 Housing Act. Obviously, this will happen only in extreme cases as most public sector landlords are only too keen to keep their properties up to standard.
We do not feel that the approach in this amendment of giving to one part of the council, the environmental health officers, a diktat over another part, is one which should pass into law. I believe it is preferable for councils to make arrangements for dealing with the unfitness of their housing stock without having recourse to the full statutory procedures that can be invoked against other landlords and owner occupiers. I am told that a number of councils already have made satisfactory arrangements between their environ-mental health officers and their housing departments for dealing with problems arising from unfitness.
The way forward in our view is for other councils to do likewise in a spirit of co-operation where they think such arrangements will be helpful to all concerned. At this point I should say to my noble friend that I am quite sure that this would be in the majority of cases. In any event, the new clause is internally inconsistent in entitling all secure tenants to a report from the environmental health officer on the condition of their dwellings, but in placing a duty to carry out repairs only on their local authority. This suggests that the new right is intended only for council tenants. If the clause came into force, it would add considerably to the work load of environmental health officers. It is for housing departments to make whatever arrangements are necessary, calling on the help of their environ-mental health officer colleagues where appropriate to get inspections carried out. I would ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Broxbourne: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, may I ask whether we may assume from what he says that, in default of putting this very sympathetic and well drafted new clause on to the statute book, he will, at any rate, circularise local authorities, drawing their attention to the importance of this matter and seeking their assistance in seeing that repairs are executed for these tenants?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, DOE circulars are not exactly in my gift. I take the point my noble friend

817
has made and will do my best to see that this point is put into the next circular.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is it not true that while, as the noble Lord says, many local governments will do their best in situations like this, local governments, after all, are masters in their own house and there are some local governments who might be very unwilling to pay any attention to circumstances like these, and also there will be many of the poorer tenants who do not know anything about what rights they have got? How are they going to find out?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the answer to the main question of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was in my speech: that when it comes to the ultimate position, the remedy is through the courts.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he said "exterior"? He did not mention "interior", as I understand it. It is the interior ones that I am particularly worried about.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my remarks included the interior where the interior is structural.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am not happy about my noble friend's reply. I thank the Opposition for the kind way in which they have helped, but I think I shall withdraw the amendment since I do not see any other possibility.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ILEA: Future
4.20 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on education in Inner London, which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement reads as follows:
"The Government have been considering the responses to the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, and the associated consultation documents. We have now reached a decision on the future arrangements for education in Inner London. We think it right to inform the House of this now.
"The White Paper proposed that there should continue to be a unitary education service in Inner London, run by a single education authority. It also proposed that the authority should be a joint board of councillors appointed by the Inner London borough councils and the Common Council of the City.
"Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of this House and others with a close understanding of the needs of education in Inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly-elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in Inner London, taken together, justify a directly-elected authority in this special case.
818
"We propose, therefore, that the successor body to the ILEA should be directly-elected. We intend to provide for this in the main legislation abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, to be introduced in the next Session.
"It remains our intention that the new education authority for Inner London should be made subject to statutory review in the light of experience."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating this very important Statement. We should like to congratulate the Government on having paid heed to the representations that have been made to them and for accepting the wishes of Londoners to have a directly-elected Inner London education authority. Can we hope that, as they thought it right to accept the wishes of those living in London on the ILEA issue, they may now accept the wishes of those living in London in regard to the GLC? If it is right for the one, why not for the other? And would it not be better and more satisfactory for ILEA itself to be part of an all-purpose authority?
Would the Minister recognise that there will be problems even with the new arrangement? There will be three different administrations running ILEA in three successive years. Surely that will be difficult and disruptive, and will mean a real lack of continuity. There could be only 13 of the present members out of the 48 going on. Could we please have a comment on that?
We are glad that the Government have recognised—and here I quote from the Statement—
"The nature, scale and importance of the education service in Inner London".
Can we take it that the Ministers do agree that there are very exceptional needs that ILEA has to provide for, with a number of different languages for children in schools and so on? Also, may I ask whether the financial arrangements for ILEA will be the same? Will there be any amendment to the Rates Bill to take account of the new situation? Finally, will any boroughs within the existing area be allowed to opt out?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. It is indeed encouraging that the Secretary of State has responded to widespread pressure for an elected body for education in London. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked: is this a portent of things to come? I attended a recent ILEA public debate and it was quite clear from the comments of all the Conservative members that they thought it would be impossible to combine the duties of ordinary borough council and joint education authority membership, which must be virtually full time. Either the borough or the education would suffer, as boroughs would nominate their least useful members.
There is one important question which has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady David. If the first election is to be held in 1985 our welcome will be unqualified, but deferment to 1986 would be

819
less welcome because presumably this would require a transitional council and it would mean that ILEA would be subjected to three different administrations in three successive years. That could only be bad for education in London.
Having taken the right course on this issue, for which we congratulate them, will the Government undertake to legislate for elections in London in 1985 and thus ensure a direct and smooth transition from the present body to the new authority? One final question, my Lords: is it intended that the new authority should be able to raise its own rate directly or by precept upon the boroughs?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for their responses to the Statement. In reply to the questions they raised—and in the main they tended to be similar ones—the noble Baroness asked "if this why not the GLC?" There can be no doubt that ILEA is in many ways a unique establishment. The fact is that it is a unique establishment in what it spends alone. Even leaving aside what it spends in relation to what it should spend, the fact is that its needs are so great we cannot compare it with any other education body in the country. We cannot even compare it with any of the other composed joint boards. It is truly unique; and when these points were made in the consultation we felt that not only were they very valid in themselves but the people making them—the unbiased people making them—were such that we should give to this the weight that we have given. So we see that there is a difference, and the two things do not necessarily have to go together.
I think the point about having three administrations in three successive years is interesting. I do not accept that it need be disruptive at all, but the fact is that the interim Bill which will be dealing with the other matters pertaining to elections and so on, which I am sure we shall be discussing in your Lordships' House in due course, is not a Bill to impose permanent solutions at all. It is there for a special purpose and we do not feel that would be an appropriate vehicle to do anything of the kind suggested. Of course I do entirely accept, as the noble Baroness says, the exceptional nature of the case—and this is why we are treating ILEA as having special needs: it is not the only reason but it is certainly one of them—and hence the agreement to do it.
As for the financial arrangements, the new ILEA, if I can call it that, will come within the scope of legislation to be presented to this House. It will also be subject to the financial and manpower controls proposed in the White Paper for the first three years of its existence. Thereafter, as I have said, we shall have to see what happens. Will any borough be allowed to opt out? The answer is, no; there is no such intention at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the kind of rating authority that it would be. In fact it will be a precepting authority; and rates, as now, will be collected by the rating authorities—in other words, the London boroughs and the City of London. I hope I have answered the questions.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth but I should like to take the
820
occasion to express my thanks to my noble friend the Minister and also to dissociate myself completely from the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. It seems to me that the important thing about this step is precisely that it will enable the citizens of London, and particularly the parents of London, to take account of the educational needs of their children rather than of other local matters, when they come to vote. Because of that, I regret (although I understand the reasons) that a direct rating authority is not suggested, since that would even more cogently bring home to the citizens of London the balance between expenditure on education and the results achieved. Nevertheless, I think that most of my noble friends on this side of the House will have greeted this announcement with enormous pleasure.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I think that all of your Lordships will know of his immense pleasure and interest in this whole subject and I was glad to hear what he said.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether, following on the remarks of my noble friend Lady David and of the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, I may ask the Minister if he can throw a little more light on that part of his Statement which refers to the new authority being subject to a statutory review. What would be the timescale for this? I am sure he will appreciate the importance of this, in the light of the fact which he has just admitted, that there will be a period in the next three years when there are three separate authorities administering education in inner London.
May I also ask, on that part of the Statement which refers to a group of people with a close understanding of the needs of education in inner London, whether he includes in that group parents of children in inner London and teaching and non-teaching staff in inner London? Does he agree that it is appropriate that we should record our appreciation of the enthusiasm, the perseverance and the tenacity with which this group of people have pursued the objective of maintaining a directly elected body responsible for education in inner London?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am second to none in my appreciation of and respect for the education lobby, not only in London but throughout the whole of the country. Yes, the parents and those who are concerned with education have always, in my experience, taken a passionate interest in this particular service for reasons which are obvious to all of us—certainly to everyone who is a parent. As regards the review, I think that the noble Baroness will have to wait for the details. The main Bill will contain a provision for review, but I am not today able to give any more detail than that about it.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I entirely agree with the decision. When the GLC was formed, my colleagues in the Government wanted to break up the ILEA. I refused and the ILEA went on. But at that time we said that the ILEA would be a success only if the interests of the children were put in front of politics. I am afraid that that has not always been the case since those days.

821
Therefore, may I ask my noble friend whether, when this new body is set up and when people are asked to stand as candidates, he and his colleagues will impress upon them that they must look on London education as something which is for the children, and for those taking other education here as well, and not as a forum for politics? My question to the Minister follows from that. How will he limit the amount of money which I presume the new body can precept on the boroughs? What will be the financial relationship between this elected body and the people who pay the rates, from whom their expenses must come?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend for what he has said and I am sure that, with his particular background and relationship with the ILEA, it will receive special weight. Of course, I so much applaud what he said about what we should like education to be; that is, apolitical. In so far as it is possible to put the emphasis on that being so, this Government will try to do so. But I fear that at the end of the day it will still be the decision of the people who are elected to it to decide the direction in which it will go. As for the financial aspects of it, I said that for the first three years—this is unusual—in the same way as will pertain to the joint boards, the overall budget will have to be approved. That is the first structure. That is because, as we learned in 1973–74, it is those critical first structures and financial budgets that can so often set a financial pattern to follow.
Beyond that, we recognise that when people are elected with one function only to be concerned about there is bound to be extra pressure for special spending. But I would also hope that the people who go on to become members will be people who will be responsible, and who will understand that we cannot always do all that we would like to do when we would like to do it. I have no doubt in my own mind that they will be at least as responsible as any other education authorities—and there are very many in the country—who, although the members have other functions as well, are concerned about that aspect. Clearly, this is a new situation and a new position that we are looking at. All the answers are not there today, but I am pleased with the general reception which your Lordships have given to the proposals.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Statement which I think all of the members on my side at County Hall will be very pleased to do. But I must disagree with my noble friend the Minister when he says that he has great respect for the present education system administered by the ILEA. I have never represented inner London; I have always represented outer London, but I have been an inner London parent and somewhat concerned. I should like to ask him if he can tell me whether there is any prospect of the Government reconsidering the matter of the precept, as that is the one thing that concerns me. There is this risk at the moment that local councils will again be blamed for the high precept, if it continues at anything like the present level of 77p in the pound. I wonder whether there is any thought of changing that?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend Lady Gardner reads Hansard—and I hope very
822
much when I read Hansard—it will show that I did not refer to my respect for the education administered by the ILEA as such. I was referring to the respect which I have for those who administer education generally, and I have a lot of respect for them. I have myself served for many years on a quite sizeable education committee. I understand the concern which my noble friend expressed about finance; and she, too, is experienced in this aspect. It may be helpful if I just say an extra word about it.
Steps will be taken to improve the accountability of the new directly elected body—and all major precepting authorities, come to that—by requiring them to provide certain background information. This will be done by amendment to the Rates Bill. In addition, as announced in the rates White Paper, steps are being taken to improve the accountability of all rating and major precepting authorities to their ratepayers. New rates demand rules will be issued, which will require authorities to show on rate bills the amount due to each major precepting authority, including the newly elected education body. All these changes will now take effect for rate demands applying to the year of abolition 1986–87.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the Minister referred to the need for what is, in effect, rate capping during the first three years of the new authority. May I ask him in what sense this is a new authority? Is it the Government's intention that the staff of the Inner London Education Authority shall lose their jobs and have to reapply for them? Is that the position of those with responsibility in schools? Surely the Government's intention cannot be to cause disruption among staff and in the schools, and in that sense is it meaningful to talk about a new authority?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, one can play around with semantics and terms. The staff position is something which will be decided by the members when they are elected. There is no intention at all to cause disruption. Frankly, it is not helpful to talk today about disruption. Disruption does not enter into it. This is about doing something which has received acceptance all round and which I think will generally be welcomed. It has got nothing at all to do with disruption.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the discussion, but yesterday I was invited to visit a deprived school in Inner London. Never having visited one before, I had my eyes opened. One of the reasons why I was asked to go round this school was to try to bend the ears of your Lordships and therefore to make sure that ILEA should continue to be elected. Having visited that school, I should tell your Lordships that we ought to be proud of it. It is a particularly good school. The fact that some of the political announcements of Frances Morrell and her friends have detracted from the quality of some of the education in Inner London schools is something that we should try to put behind us. Can we, therefore, congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues for having come round to the view that it should be an elected rather than an appointed authority?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.

Housing and Building Control Bill
4.41 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No.21:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
(". After section 41B of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Tenants' Co-operatives.
41C.—(1) A group of secure tenants who have registered as a co-operative society in accordance with section l(2)(a) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1975 and under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974 shall be entitled to apply to the landlord for an agreement within the provisions of section 139 of the Housing Act 1980, and it may not be refused without good reason.
(2) Regulations under this section may make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who attended the Committee stage of the Bill will recall that I moved a clause not dissimilar to this, which was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as being authoritarian. I have tried to cure that most illiberal quality in the new clause which I am submitting to your Lordships this afternoon. I do not apologise for bringing it once again to the attention of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that one should apologise for seeking to increase the rights of tenants, formed into voluntary associations, in their dealings with local authorities. In our earlier discussions there was widespread agreement that although the Government had reservations about some of the wording the principles behind my new clause were correct. I have taken into account the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and also the useful subsequent discussion which we had in his office with the noble Lord and members of his staff. Therefore I hope that this revised version of the clause will find support throughout your Lordships' House.
I do not understand how anybody can disagree with the concept that tenants should be allowed to have more control over the management of their homes, if that is their wish. About a year ago a study was made of the views of 1,854 tenants in the London Borough of Camden. They were local authority tenants, tenants of housing associations and members of three housing co-operative schemes. On nearly every count the co-operative members expressed their complete satisfaction with the repairs service, the caretaking and the way in which the old and the disabled were treated in the co-operatives. I regret to say that this was not the case when the housing association and local authority tenants were interviewed. Any one of us who has been engaged in local government and involved with housing associations and who has seen how, with the best will in the world, housing managers of those kinds of bodies try to work, knows that they can never provide the same quality of interested service as can be given by people looking after their own houses, their own tenancies and their own colleagues. When we last
824
discussed this matter the Government said that they did not wish to introduce an element of compulsion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Coercion.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Yes, coercion. We agree with the view that we do not wish to appear to coerce. If you think about it for two seconds, how can you coerce people into taking control of the management of their own homes? By their very nature, co-operatives are voluntary bodies. Their members volunteer to join them. There is no element of coercion of the members of co-operatives. The question is whether local authorities of the old-fashioned kind should have the right to obstruct people who wish to co-operate in this way, just because they believe in centralism and in the 1930s concept of housing socialism, or just because some of them may wish, as a kind of virility symbol, to keep control over people in sprawling municipal estates, which they see as a way of exercising political power. As the Government know, there are authorities which, unfortunately, take that view and which want to retain, as far as they can, the old-fashioned municipal control of housing.
When the Housing Act 1980 was drawn up the Government quite rightly gave to councils the authority to make management agreements with housing co-operatives. Presumably, they took the view that everybody would sit around the table and that everything would be sorted out agreeably by all parties. This well-intentioned view took no account of the fact that some local councils—I do not say all—might wish to prevent voluntary groups of tenants from having a say in their own affairs. This is in fact what has happened. There are all sorts of small-time dictators—some of them councillors, some of them housing managers—who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. The last thing that that kind of person wants is tenants to demonstrate that they can get together voluntarily, form legal bodies voluntarily, manage their housing estates and carry out repairs in a better, more competent and more caring and concerned way than can local councils.
Therefore the amendment seeks to strengthen the rights of responsible voluntary organisations. It improves, in my submission, upon the powers which the Government embodied in the 1980 Act and encourages the growth of alternatives to the drab municipal housing estates which over the years so many of us have seen spring up in all parts of the country. The concept has received the backing of many local authorities—from Conservative groups, Labour groups and Social Democrat and Liberal groups. On this occasion I hope that it meets with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are grateful for the noble Lord's persistence. I have looked carefully at the reasons why the previous amendment was not acceptable to the Government. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, read with care the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who said that he agreed with the principle behind the amendment. If we can get a little more than agreement with that principle we shall, I believe, make some progress. The Government have quite fairly pointed

825
out the various ways in which they have sought to give hope to disparate groups of tenants. The overwhelming majority of tenants who have benefited have been those who have been enabled to buy their property. This afternoon we shall be considering tenants of charitable housing, who will receive anything up to £25,000 per tenant. We are dealing with people who, in the main, will not want to move from where they have been living for years. They may not wish to buy the houses they occupy. They may be living in tower blocks or maisonettes.
There are large groups of people whom the Government appear to put way down their priority list. Nevertheless, those groups of people require attention, sustenance and, I believe, encouragement. I am more concerned with the opportunity for small groups of people to learn the harsh realities of life in respect of management. For a long time there were many people who thought that the soft option was a co-operative. The more people realise that co-operatives represent not just an opportunity but also a responsibility to be met with limited resources—and that they will have to settle squabbles and not leave them to the housing manager, council or landlord—the more painful the process might be. I must declare a small interest as a member of a housing co-operative committee. I can tell your Lordships that it is heartache all the time with different groups of people. The concept is right, but problems come up all the time.
In this amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept, we are concerned with the fact that despite all the Government believe they have done for people over the last five years, there are still those who are left out of a meaningful share of the choice in which the Government say they believe. Where a group of people want to spend their time—and it is more a matter of their time than their money—in looking after their own affairs and making their own mistakes, we believe that the co-operative concept—properly managed, legally formed, and overseen by the council in a benevolent and encouraging way—is a very good method of making sure that people who have nothing else to which they may look forward other than a benevolent landlord will, perhaps, get themselves into the action in what one might say are the new housing circumstances of the 1980s and 1990s.
We on this side of the House very much hope that the Minister was serious when he said that he agreed with the principle. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, because he has produced an amendment which I believe the Minister should be able to accept. We certainly support it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. I do not believe that any of us can say exactly what form this action should take, but it would gather together tenants, landowners or house owners in a certain area with a common interest in the welfare of that particular development. We know that there are estates which have gone downhill to some extent—inevitably, because the tenants have no common interest in their equal well-being. To my mind, the proposed new clause would lead the way to developments which might be of considerable importance.
826
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that he liked the principle; yes, I know—but principles are no good unless they are put into some kind of operation. I do not believe that this clause can possibly do any harm to anything that the Government want to do. The control would be entirely in our hands. The Government would make the regulations and could see what happens. It is something that should be the subject of an experiment, to see how far it can be carried.
I have a particular recollection of housing estates which have gone downhill because the tenants have had no common interest. Building a common interest would give them all a sense of working together in the well-being and establishment of the amenities on their own land. I hope that the Government will give this point very careful consideration.
Perhaps I may mention one further point. The Government have made some 200 amendments to this Bill, and I am not aware that they have accepted voluntarily a single amendment in this House from any other area. I do not know of one single amendment that has been accepted. It is rather hard work talking about amendments if one never has an amendment accepted by the Government.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has made clear, this amendment is similar to that which he tabled, and divided the House on, at Committee stage. Since then, I have studied with care the points that were made by those noble Lords who spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, has also written to me about his amendment, expressing concern about the reluctance of a few local authorities to enter into management agreements with their tenants. I am most grateful to him for writing to me in that way, and for coming to see me.
I also appreciate that this new amendment removes the limit on the number of tenants and is intended to take account of the arguments I put forward on those occasions. The difference between this and the previous amendment is that the co-operatives will already have been formed before any approach is made to the landlord. 1 cannot but agree with my noble friend Lord Selkirk that this is the right approach. In the Government's view, however, it still cuts across the voluntary principle without which these agreements are doomed to failure. Even in its modified form, I do not regard this amendment as acceptable, despite the further arguments which noble Lords have now put forward in its favour.
I will also deal with one further difficulty which arises from the restriction of the amendment to tenant management co-operatives registered with the Housing Corporation under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1980. I would like to assure the House first of all, and most emphatically, that the Government attach great importance to the good management of public sector housing estates, especially those owned by local authorities. We are also in favour of the participation of tenants in arrangements for the management of such estates. We therefore share the enthusiasm of noble Lords about the role that can be played by tenant management co-operatives and applaud any

827
reasonable attempt to increase their numbers, though as yet there are very few.
I welcome the principle behind this amendment— today, as on a previous occasion—in so far as it recognises that the making of tenant management agreements should be encouraged. However, encouragement is the word. I cannot accept that local authorities or other public sector landlords, to which this amendment would apply, should be obliged by a group of their tenants to enter into a tenant management—and this is exactly what the amendment would do. This will only lead to friction between tenant and landlord and is not the way to achieve workable arrangements for such essential functions as the collection of rent, the selection of tenants and the general maintenance of the whole estate. It is precisely this friction which the noble Lord and I wish to avoid.
Several references were made in Committee to the tasks of educating and training tenants for management responsibility and to the need to explain generally what is involved in the transfer of functions from a local authority to its tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to the "enormous educational job to be done". It is just because we recognise that encouragement and education rather than compulsion will provide the way forward, that my department has been engaged in research on tenant management co-operatives and has published two reports which set out the experience of several successful co-operatives for the guidance of others. I warmly commend these publications to the House and to those concerned with housing management. They are entitled Management Co-operatives: the Early Stages and Management Co-operatives: Tenant Responsibility in Practice. Both are published by the department and are available in the Library of the House. They show how the job should be done through practical examples—exactly this kind of advice is what is needed.
As well as issuing these reports, which are particularly helpful to tenants, the department has issued guidelines for local authorities on the scope of management agreements and their relationship with the statutory responsibilities of the tenants' charter and other requirements under the Housing Act 1980, and has drawn attention to an agreement made with the Wellington Mills Co-operative that can be regarded as a model. We shall see what more can be done, but I urge your Lordships not to suppose that progress can be made by further legislation and regulations. We must maintain the voluntary principle and help tenants and landlords to make full use of the existing provisions. I do not think that it is right to give tenants the ability to force such an arrangement on their landlord. The whole essence of tenant management agreements must depend on arrangements willingly entered into by both landlord and tenant—as the name implies.
I would also like to draw attention to one other difficulty I see with this amendment. It is now restricted to those tenant management co-operatives which are registered with the Housing Corporation under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1974. The noble Lord has suggested that this will give the Housing
828
Corporation the opportunity to veto these co-operatives before any group approaches its local authority. At present, about six of the co-operatives with agreements approved under the 1980 Act have registered with the corporation in order to be eligible to receive grants under Section 93 of the Finance Act 1965 for relief from corporation tax.
Because the Housing Corporation's experience of such co-operatives is understandably limited, it relies on the advice of the local authority concerned on the day-to-day performance and activities of a co-operative. Also, it does not register any tenant management co-operative which does not have an agreement with its local authority approved by the Secretary of State under Schedule 20 to the Housing Act 1980. This is, I believe, a responsible approach. Registration with the Housing Corporation is a secondary consideration for tenant management co-operatives. As I have made clear, good workable arrangements with the local authority are the prerequisite for successful tenant management co-operatives. To give the Housing Corporation the power to veto such agreements would, I suggest, be putting the cart before the horse, and require them to do something they could not reasonably do without consulting the local authority.
I therefore hope that the House will accept that the Government have demonstrated they are anxious to promote the principle of tenant management co-operatives—but through encouragement and co-operation. Such a new clause as this would, in my view, be inappropriate—and, as in Committee, I urge the House not to pursue it.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for their support. It will hardly surprise your Lordships that I am bitterly disappointed in what I regard as the blinkered response of the noble Lord the Minster to the amendment. The amendment does not give carte blanche to groups of tenants to force a proposal on a reluctant authority. It can be refused with good reason. The power to make regulations under subsection (2) of my proposed new clause would, I should have thought, enable the clause to escape the charge of coercion or compulsion.
I cannot get through to the Government that there are, fairly obviously, authorities in various parts of the country and under different kinds of political control who do not like the idea of voluntary co-operatives, which they regard as interfering with their God-given right to manage the housing estates in the way that they choose to manage them. There are municipal tin-pot dictators about who will backslide as long as they can. The Minister has given me every assistance short of help in this particular problem that I am placing before your Lordships.
This being the Third Reading of the Bill, I have no further opportunity of trying to persuade the noble Lord the Minister of the strength of my case. I think I have done everything that I possibly can with entreaties and begging requests—but no threats so far—so I can only use the ultimate deterrent and ask to test the opinion of the House by dividing on this amendment.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Annan, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Bishopston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Caccia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Collison, L.

[Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn,

Morris of Grasmere, L.

B.

Mulley, L.

Denington, B.

Munster, E.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Porritt, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somers, L.

[Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henniker, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wigoder, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Jacobson, L.

E.

Jacques, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Alport, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V.

Avon, E.

De La Warr, E.

Bathurst, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Beloff, L.

Eccles, V.

Belstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Boothby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Elton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Enroll of Hale, L.

Caithness, E.

Forester, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fortescue, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cockfield, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Coleraine, L.

Glasgow, E.

830

Glenkinglas, L.

Pender, L.

Gormanston, V.

Pennock, L.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Marylebone, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Hawke, L.

L.

Hood, V.

Portland, D.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Kimberley, E.

Reigate, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Rodney, L.

Long, V.

Romney, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lyell, L.

Sandford, L.

McFadzean, L.

Savile, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Spens, L.

Margadale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Maude of Stratford-upon-

L.

Avon, L.

Strathspey, L.

Melville, V.

Suffield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mersey, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Teynham, L.

Molson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trenchard, V.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northchurch, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vickers, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Vivian, L.

Onslow, E.

Windlesham, L.

Orkney, E.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.10 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 22:
[Printed earlier: col. 802. ]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Clause 35 [Provisions as respects certain tenants of charitable housing associations etc.]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 38, line 3, leave out ("housing association grant under section 29 of the 1974 Act") and insert ("grant out of money provided by Parliament").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the housing association grant which is now to be paid out to tenants of housing associations who wish to purchase a house of their choice in an area of their choice which they are unable to do under what is now Clause 33 and which, on Report, we attempted to get deleted from the Bill and were within five votes of doing so.
The scheme as it is in the Bill is to be paid for from the existing cash limited national housing programme. As we are all aware, the Chancellor announced a £500 million reduction in this programme for 1984–85 through his Autumn Budget Statement. For the 1985–86 programme and beyond, the finance is set at increasingly low levels according to the latest public expenditure White Paper. The money for this new vehicle of the right to buy will come from the Housing Corporation budget and it is part of that programme, which is cash limited at £617 million for 1984–85.
The corporation announced prior to the scheme which is now in the Bill that the cash available was insufficient to meet the level of commitments for 1984–85. In a news release it announced that if it completed the 1983–84 programme in full it would have no ability to fund new projects for next year. Accordingly the programme of fair rent provision was reduced by 6,000 units and the value of tenders for the remainder of 1983–84 was reduced by £94 million.
The Government have stated that before 1984–85 the money for the charitable scheme will be found from the corporation's cash limited budget. As we heard in the debate on this clause at the Report and Committee stages, estimates are between £10 million and £20 million. Those amounts were accepted and recognised on both sides, but very much higher totals have been put forward by the National Housing and Town Planning Council, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other bodies. Be that as it may, the Minister agreed that it was impossible to forecast the exact sum, but it will be a considerable sum and will probably increase in future years. For next year further cuts will have to be made in the corporation's budget to pay for this proposal.
In addition, when a local authority house or non-charitable housing association dwelling is sold, the capital receipt is added in one way or another to the national housing programme to boost spending. As we have been informed, council house sales alone have added £1,700 million to the spending programme for 1983–84. Quite naturally the Minister often prays that in aid as being a boost for the housing investment programme. Hence there is a capital spending gain through the ordinary right-to-buy sales but there is no such gain from the charitable proposals. Indeed, there is a direct loss, as the payments to tenants come from the national housing programme. In other words, as more and more tenants buy houses or flats through this scheme, they will be taking more and more from the total resources available for housing generally.
It is for that reason that I move the amendment in order to make it clear that the grant should come out of money provided by Parliament and should not be money leaked from the national housing programme which is in itself already too small for the needs and demands put upon it. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, this amendment is a last attempt to make the Government realise what they are doing and to come to terms with the overall picture. At the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, talked about the old guns firing against the target of the right to buy. As one who for many years sat on the Cross-Benches, I assure him that that is not the case. I think that at the Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, covered all the things that worry us. At this stage I select only two.
First, the Government are selecting a small minority of persons who occupy charitable housing for very special preferential treatment and then among those persons not those in houses built before 1974. The proposal really is not very fair, even if you take what the Government are doing only in that area. But it ignores the vast majority of people occupying private leased accommodation who will rightly feel far more
832
aggrieved than the small number of those in charitable accommodation who might not, apart from this Bill, be able to buy their houses. I should think that the terms offered to these favoured people are absolutely without precedent and unjustified.
Secondly, the provisions of this Bill for a grant to purchase a house in the private market mean, as has already been said, less rented accommodation for those who desperately need it, because the Government cannot afford more funds. I ask the Minister to direct his sympathy and attention to this simple fact and to think of those people for whom rented accommodation provides the only possibility of housing.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. If the costs of the scheme set out in Clause 35 were guaranteed to be no more than £10 million in the first year and approximately £20 million in the next couple of years, as the Government claim, the amendment might not be quite so essential. But governments generally, irrespective of their political composition, do not have a good track record on financial estimates. They almost invariably under-estimate costs. One thinks, for example, of Concorde; and nor was it a one-off miscalculation. Although the over-shoot does not now look as if it will be so great— let us certainly hope not—we have the current example of Trident. I do not think that that is a misplaced parallel: governments tend to be excessively optimistic, not purely over defence expenditure.
If the Government turn out to be right in their forecasts of expenditure, they have nothing to fear from this amendment. But I believe that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the National Housing and Town Planning Council have it more or less right and the cost is more likely to rise from £19 million in the first year to between £35 million and £40 million in the second and third years. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, that will mean severe cuts in the Housing Corporation's budget if the amendment is not passed. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support it.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment derives from our discussions at an earlier stage about the costs of the new scheme and its implications for the rest of the Housing Corporation's programme. There is no persuasive reason for treating resource allocation for this modest, low-cost home ownership initiative—for that is what it is—separately from the other elements of the Housing Corporation's programme which have similar objectives. I see no reason for that on cost grounds, nor is there any case in terms of administrative efficiency. In fact, the arguments are all in favour of the way we have chosen to provide for the scheme through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. This programme is the right place to accommodate the expenditure. There is a grant mechanism—housing association grant—which is readily available, and which already meets other calls for publicly-funded housing association capital expenditure.
To set up a separate system, with a separate cash limit, is surely unnecessary and inflexible. It would

833
prevent the possibility of virement between expenditure heads, which is important to the Housing Corporation in helping it to manage its programme. I understand very well the concern that has been expressed about the resource implications, and I have done my best to explain that these can, and should, be dealt with within the normal arrangements for projects financed through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. That is what we have done this year, and that is what we propose to do in future years.
I cannot accept that it makes sense to ask the corporation to manage a complex programme of nearly £700 million, and then to exclude from it, and to manage quite separately, a modest scheme of what I am saying would cost about £10 million annually, closely related to other fair rent and low-cost home ownership programmes. Surely it seems only sensible that the new home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations should be managed as part of the existing Housing Corporation programme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, broadened the discussion considerably. She talked about the effects on resources and the addition or diminution which would result from the right to buy. She referred to £1,700 million of extra money as being available. She is quite right; I have often referred to this as now being in the coffers of local government. She said—though I did not quite follow her—that as people buy they will be taking funds from housing generally. I did not quite see how she was able to tie up those two statements.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, took us into yet another sphere, that of private accommodation. He is quite right about that, in that often the tenants in private accommodation are in greater need of assistance in one way or another than are those in any other sector. I do not at all quarrel with him about that. All I would say to him is that the private rented sector is not provided with public money. Therefore what we do in regard to housing associations, council houses, and so on is one thing, but we cannot do it with money that is not put out by the public. But let the noble Viscount not have any doubts that I do not have other than enormous sympathy with the underlying theme of what he is saying about private tenants, and I hope that one of these days the Government will come up with something that could help that situation. I tell him that it is no secret that this is a matter of considerable thought.
I was pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he would be satisfied if the figure was only about £10 million. We earlier crossed swords, and I hope he will no mind if I say that I am glad that he is now down from £60 million to £19 million, when he started off with a figure of £600 million. It is almost a case of, "Do I hear £8 million? Do I hear £6 million?" At least we are getting closer to one another. I think that the noble Lord should have the same confidence as I have. If our estimate of £10 million is wrong, it will still be within the figure of £14 million put forward by other reputable, independent bodies; that is their estimate—between £10 million and £14 million. The noble Lord said that it was not misplaced to draw an analogy with Concorde or Trident. Well, maybe it is not misplaced, but I am sure that he would not expect me to go along with that.
834
We cannot accept the amendment. Although when discussing previous amendments we said that we had great sympathy with the points made, I must say that we do not have the same sympathy with this amendment, because we must think in practical terms, and in any case it is not a starter; and that is why we cannot accept it.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I think that none of us sitting here will be surprised that the amendment has been rejected. Indeed, as has been said, it is the Government's policy not to accept any amendments, however wise or non-party political they may be. But with regard to this amendment, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will for a minute consider the following suggestion. I remember him saying—I think I am right—that in the allocation to the Housing Corporation for this year a sum of £10 million was specified to meet this particular need. We do not know what will be the response from this field; it is an unknown. If it comes within £10 million, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, can quite rightly say, "We have catered for it". But if it is more than £10 million, the situation will be very serious for the Housing Corporation and for all the housing associations dependent on Housing Corporation money. They will already have their programmes set and geared to the money that is available, minus the £10 million. With all his experience of housing, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, knows as well as any of us in the Chamber that when a contract is about to be let it is exceedingly distressing if programmes are upset due to a claw-back; there are already always enough checks all along the line.
In my experience of housing, at the end of the 12-month period that has been catered for financially, taking the housing programme as a whole, involving the local authorities and everybody else, there is always a little money left over. People fall by the wayside, or something that was planned does not happen, and, as I say, there is always some money left over. Could not the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, go so far as to say that if the programme exceeds £10 million, when it comes to the end of the year, or near to the end of the year—because one can see the position two or three months in advance—he will look at the total housing financial allocation to see whether in the overall budget there is some spare money that could then be channelled to the Housing Corporation? The Housing Corporation could then say to the associations which are entirely dependent upon it, "OK, some more money has come—go ahead, don't hold back". Is that not a reasonable proposition, and could it not possibly be looked at?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that what the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, very fairly describes is a situation that is not at all unreasonable, and of course no one is saying that £10 million is the exact figure, because we do not know. We are saying that it is a likely figure as we see the situation. I think that it is a very reasonable one to put forward; otherwise I would not have made the case as I have done. But having said that, I shall certainly undertake to bring to the notice of colleagues what the noble Baroness has said. She knows how the system

835
works—there is slippage in one area or another, and there are programmes to be drawn up next time round. I feel that what she said was very fair, and I promise that I shall certainly talk to colleagues about it.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has just said. One point on this matter is that the grant to the Housing Corporation was fixed and then this proposal was put in afterwards. So this is a new obligation on the corporation which was not taken into consideration when the housing grant was fixed; I have forgotten exactly when that was, but it was some time towards the end of last year. I suggest that in future there should be a distinction between what is to be paid under the clause and the general duties of the Housing Corporation; each should be shown separately. In other words, special consideration should be given for this additional obligation that has in fact been thrown onto the Housing Corporation. It is really quite separate and in point of fact does not really have anything to do with the main work of the Housing Corporation. We do not know what will be the obligation in future years. Some people say more; some people say less. However, by the end of next year we should have some idea and separate consideration should be given when the grant to the Housing Corporation is fixed.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps once more, with the leave of the House, I can intervene. Yes, I am sure, first of all. that the amount of money involved must be separately identified. It has to be identified. I am sure that it is our intention to do so. As to whether it should actually be presented in some other way, I shall talk to my colleagues and see if this can be done.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, put his finger right on the point that I had been making, like other noble Lords, throughout the discussion. It is not so much that the money comes out of the Housing Corporation funds, althought that is an important matter, the corporation has itself said that it cannot meet future obligations. However, even if more is put into the Housing Corporation funds, it will still have to come out of housing funds generally where there has been a reduction. There is no projected increase in the public expenditure figures for housing.
When the Minister talks about low-cost housing projects, the Federation of Housing Associations has estimated in excess of £10 million and somewhere betweeen £14 million and £15 million. The amount is not known. When the noble Lord, Lord Monson, took the figure of £10 million, I thought that it was, frankly, unfair of the Minister to congratulate him for reducing his target and agreeing with him. What the noble Lord was saying, if I understood his remarks correctly, was that even if it was at that minimum figure, there are extra demands and it will increase.
There will not be a tremendous number of forms and different methods of control. All that the amendment says is that there should be a grant out of
836
money provided by Parliament. It does not restrict the method of its deployment. It will be funded through the Housing Corporation anyhow. This is not leaning on the Housing Corporation's funds at a time when the corporation finds itself stretched. It will be extra for an entirely new project.
Even if extra funds are given to the Housing Corporation, I come back to the basic point. The money would have to come out of housing expenditure generally. I am afraid that the Minister's reply, although not unexpected, was most unsatisfactory, and I intend to test the opinion of the House.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 101.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bishopston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Brockway, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

David. B. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Mulley, L.

Denington, B.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

[Teller]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jacobson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jacques, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alport, L.

Cathcart, E.

Auckland, L.

Coleraine, L.

Avon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bathurst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bellwin, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Bethell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Boothby, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Broxbourne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Caithness, E.

Eccles, V.

837

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Erroll, E.

Onslow, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Forester, L.

Pennock, L.

Fraser of Kilmarnock, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glasgow, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

Glenkinglas, L.

L.

Gormanston, V.

Portland, D.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Reigate, L.

Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Rodney, L.

Hawke, L.

Romney, E.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Kimberley, E.

Shannon, E.

Kitchener, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Spens, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strathcona and

Long, V.

Mount Royal, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathspey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Suffield, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

McFadzean, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Teviot, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Teynham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Margadale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Marley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Avon, L.

Vickers, B.

Melville, V.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Westbury, L.

Mersey, V.

Windlesham, L.

Middleton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.42 p.m.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 38, line 7, at end insert ("Provided that the maximum discount granted to such a tenant shall not exceed £10,000.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to reduce the maximum amount payable in respect of any one property sold under the rather special and unusual provision of Clause 35 from £25,000 to £10,000.
The defeat of the last amendment makes this amendment even more necessary, so as to reduce the potential drain on the housing corporation budget. My amendment is partly inspired by the very constructive suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne—who I am sorry to see is no longer in his place—from the Government Benches at the Committee stage, in which he suggested as a compromise (because he was not entirely happy about the new clause) that the Government might be prepared to use the powers contained in Section 29(5) of the 1974 Act to limit the amount to be paid out under this scheme.
We have been told that the average amount payable under the scheme will be in the region of £6,000, from which one can deduce that relatively few people will be expected to receive more than £10,000 in any event.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said on Report at col. 14 in the Official Report on 26th March:
"we are talking here of tenants who are generally elderly or poor".
This amendment would not in any way act to the detriment of tenants who are poor as, by definition, the poorer tenants could never afford the type of house to which the contribution—or subsidy if one prefers—of £15,000, £20,000 or £25,000 would apply, as such tenants could never afford the mortgage repayments.
But of course there are other tenants in a different category. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, speaking at col. 16 on the same day, pointed out that:
"Those moving out will obviously be the better off tenants";
and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, spoke of people who had unexpectedly come into money, possibly by marriage or inheritance. Of course, one is delighted when people unexpectedly come into money and can in consequence move to a superior house. But do they really deserve to receive, in addition, a grant of up to £25,000 for so doing at the expense either of those who may wish to rent their houses and who cannot find rented accommodation or, alternatively, at the expense of the taxpayer at large? Surely £10,000 is reasonable and adequate in such circumstances?
The other potential beneficiaries of the larger sums—that is to say those in excess of £10,000—are the children of elderly parents living in charitable housing association property who have been successful in life (by which I mean financially successful) and who decide to persuade their elderly parents to leave their comfortable homes—by definition they must be comfortable because only those living in houses or flats built since 1974 are eligible under Clause 35—and to move to an expensive and yet highly subsidised house or flat with the promise that they, that is to say the children—or the other relations—will meet their parents' mortgage repayments with a view to being able to inherit a valuable property acquired at a bargain price, in net terms, in due course.
I am not suggesting anything remotely sinister, improper, underhand or Machiavellian. The children in question will doubtless in every case genuinely believe that they are doing the best for their parents—as much as for themselves—and in many cases, if not most cases, this may well be so. It is simply that those of us who have put our names to this amendment see no reason for either the taxpayer or the housing budget to subsidise such profitable, albeit no doubt sensible, family arrangements to the tune of £25,000. In my view, £10,000 would seem to be more than adquate. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, from these Benches I should just like to support the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his amendment. He stated it very clearly and made out an extremely good case. I think that many people on both sides of the House would feel much happier about the whole scheme if the Government felt that they could accept the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the problem is that there is a clear failure to appreciate the significance of this £25,000. Let me try to explain the position. Basically the Government cannot accept that these tenants—these particular tenants—should be viewed any differently from tenants who happen to live in council dwellings. They are exactly the same and should be given neither more nor less. They should not

839
be at a greater advantage or disadvantage. The aim has been to give these tenants treatment that is as nearly equivalent as possible to what is available under the right to buy. The fact is that the maximum discount available under the right to buy is £25,000 and that is why £25,000 is the maximum under this scheme. It may very well be—in fact I suspect that it is likely—that the occasions on which discounts will be above £10,000 will be very rare. I think that the combination of the cost floor and the scaling down of discounts when tenants move to a cheaper property is likely to mean that such large discounts are rare. But if a tenant living in an expensive area and with a substantial number of years of tenancy would be entitled to a discount of more than £10,000 under the right to buy, I do not see why he should not get the same discount under this scheme.
As I explained during the Committee stage, the tenant will never be able to get a higher cash discount or a higher percentage discount than he would be entitled to under the right to buy. One of the concerns of your Lordships when this scheme was first announced was that it would enable tenants to receive large discounts based on the value of their rented property, which we were told would meet almost the entire cost of a house that they might buy in a cheaper area. We have dealt with that situation by relating the discount to the value of the house a tenant buys when he moves to a cheaper house. I think that that is fairer than a cut-off of £10,000 which is so much less than the maximum available under the right to buy. It might prevent some tenants from buying houses in the very area in which they have lived for many years.
There is just one further point that I should make about this amendment. It would make the 10 per cent. maximum a statutory maximum on the face of the Act so that it could be changed only by primary legislation. That is not the case with the £25,000 maximum, which is contained in a statutory instrument made under Section 7(4) of the 1980 Act, and which could be changed without the need for new primary legislation. I believe that it is right that for the right-to-buy scheme and for this scheme, which I hope will remain on the statute book for many years, it should be possible to amend the financial limits without the need for new primary legislation.
Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment which would provide significantly lower benefits than are available under the right-to-buy scheme. We have proposed a fair substitute and certainly not a half measure. When this matter was first debated at the Committee stage of this Bill there was much concern expressed about the fact that handouts might be given and the sum sounded so large, but when we went into it in depth—which I did at the next stage because I thought it was quite proper that I should try to assuage the concerns of the House on this—it was realised that these tenants would not be at a great advantage. Far from it, it was thought more likely that they would be at some disadvantage. We wanted to keep the disadvantage as small as possible, which is what we do in this legislation.
Once we accept that we do not seek to give any advantage, but seek to keep the matter on an even footing as regards council tenants, then it becomes
840
understandable. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who has stayed with this matter throughout the stages of the Bill, will have to agree that there would be inequity in doing anything else. That is why we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for setting out his case. He says that the Government's intention is not to favour beneficiaries under this particular clause: that it is not to give them any more advantage or subject them to any greater disadvantage than applies under the right-to-buy legislation generally. But for reasons which we went into quite exhaustively at earlier stages, many of us believe that those who exercise their right to buy under Clause 35 will be better off, because of the right of choice.
We must not forget that monies disbursed under the provisions of this clause will come out of the housing market altogether as opposed to monies disbursed under the ordinary right-to-buy scheme, where they will be ploughed back into housing.
There was obviously considerable unease about this new Clause 35—which, as we know, was never discussed in another place—right across the party spectrum at earlier stages. Your Lordships will remember than an amendment to delete this clause was defeated by a mere five votes at the Report stage. The amendment, which I suggest is a very modest one, is a genuine attempt to make this clause a little less far-reaching and rather more acceptable to parliamentary and public opinion. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to support this amendment in the Division Lobby.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION No.4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ardwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Attlee, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

[Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grimond, L.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bishopston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brockway, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacobson, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Denington, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Leatherland, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ennals, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Fitt, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mishcon, L.

841

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Oram, L.

Stone, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Thurso, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rochester, L.

Underhill, L.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Serota, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Shannon, E.

E.

Simon, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stallard, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Alport, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

McFadzean, L.

Bathurst, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bethell, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Birdwood, L.

Avon, L.

Boothby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Molson, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Newall, L.

Coleraine, L.

Northchurch, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Daventry, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone,

De La Warr, E.

L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reigate, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Erroll, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sandford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Savile, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Somers, L.

Gormanston, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Suffield, L.

Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Hives, L.

Teynham, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trenchard, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Kimberley, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kitchener, E.

Vickers, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vivian, L.

Lawrence, L.

Westburv, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.1 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 38, line 10, leave out ("by way of sub-sale") and insert ("without taking the conveyance, grant or assignment")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment of a technical nature, and I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 54:
[Printed earlier: cols. 802–805.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 27 to 54 en bloc.
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 96, line 8, at end insert—
("6A. At the end of section 6 of that Act (purchase price) there shall be added the following subsection—
"(6) Where the secure tenant's tenancy has at any time been assigned by virtue of section 37A of this Act, the persons specified in subsection (5) above shall not include any person who under that tenancy was a secure tenant before the assignment.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I also speak to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59.
Amendment No. 58: Page 97, line 4, leave out ("In section 13(2)") and insert ("(1) In subsection (1) of section 13")
Amendment No. 59: Page 97, line 5, after ("buy)") insert ("for the words from "becomes the secure tenant" to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be subsitituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) becomes the secure tenant under the same secure tenancy otherwise than on an assignment made by virtue of section 37 A of this Act; or

(b) becomes the secure tenant under a periodic tenancy arising by virtue of section 29 of this Act on the coming to an end of the secure tenancy;"

(2) In subsection (2) of that section")
This group of amendments are all consequential to the introduction of the right to exchange. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 66:
[Printed earlier: cols. 803 and above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 56 to 66 en bloc. They are all consequential.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I should like at the outset to thank your Lordships for the careful consideration which has been given to this Bill. It is a Bill with a somewhat chequered history. We had almost reached this stage last May when the general election was called and Parliament was dissolved and the Bill was lost. That, of course, some would say, was a small price to pay for the result that then followed; but perhaps not everyone would agree with that. Nevertheless, I regret that many tenants who were pinning their hopes on new provisions in the Bill have had to wait another year. I think I can safely say that the same fate will not befall the present Bill and their waiting will soon be at an end.
The delay has had some benefits as well as disadvantages. It has enabled us to add important new provisions, for instance, to extend the right to buy to certain tenants of county councils and to give other tenants the right to exchange their homes. Moreover, this is a complex Bill and a second chance to scrutinise it has certainly not been a waste of effort; far from it. It has enabled us to consider some issues in much greater detail than we did the first time round.

843
I cannot resist pointing out that the leasehold provisions in Clause 1, which gave rise to so much interest at Committee stage six weeks ago, in fact passed through your Lordships' House last Session with hardly a ripple of interest shown in them. Perhaps all Bills should have to run through the gauntlet twice. Heaven forbid! But I am sure that your Lordships will take the point I am making. It is certainly as well for governments, and even more so for this Minister, that they should not have to do so.
As always on these occasions, it is invidious to make any selective acknowledgments of the valuable contributions which your Lordships have made. However, I should like to record my respect for the ability with which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—not for the first time; she and I have crossed swords many times in handling Bills in your Lordships' House—has handled this Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for the way they have presented the Opposition case. The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, always makes notable contributions when we discuss housing. It is a shame that we rarely agree, but I have a suspicion that underlying that we have a deep, fundamental agreement on what we would like to see. There is not much doubt about that. We have disagreed on many points, but I say again that I have every respect for the way in which the arguments were presented.
On my own side, I should like particularly to thank in her absence today my noble friend Lady Faithfull for her support, and to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for his many knowledgeable and illuminating contributions, particularly on the selective building control. May I also thank my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Molson for their input into this. They brought an expertise and knowledge which was perhaps not always comfortable for those of us on the Government Front Bench, but at least it was never less than respected, and it certainly has helped us to make a better Bill.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk was concerned earlier today that so few amendments had been accepted. May I say to him that there have been quite a number of alterations made to the Bill at the instigation of himself—and I shall refer in a moment to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—and others, and in fact we have brought things back in another form. While it is not always the same as a straight acceptance of an amendment, nevertheless especially in a Bill as complex as this in which parts have involved matters of great technicality on the building control side, and so on, clearly it would have been wrong not to take the notice that I assure my noble friend we have taken.
May I finally give a special word of acknowledgment and thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He has applied himself both to the substance of the Bill and to the details of its drafting, and has most certainly enabled us to improve it in an important number of respects. This is the first time it has been my privilege to listen to the noble and learned Lord discussing the detail, wording and drafting of a Bill, and it has been a lesson in itself which I have
844
taken in all humility. I hope that those who draft our Bills in the future will bear in mind that the noble and learned Lord might well be reading them. I think it will help to make all our legislation better legislation.
As your Lordships know, there are one or two outstanding issues still being considered following the implication of amendments which were passed against the Government in Committee. It may be that those particular issues will have to come before your Lordships' House again. I do not know. I can say no more than that at present. But subject to that, I hope your Lordships will agree that we have now completed our task of revising and improving this particular Bill, and I beg to move that it do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first thank the Minister for his courtesy, also for his kind references to my colleagues on the Front Bench and to myself, and also to my noble friend Lady Denington. I cannot thank him for his support for any of the amendments which we were trying to get passed. I feel rather sad for him because of his notable lack of enthusiasm, and I felt there was unease even from his own Benches.
I do not think this is a Bill which anybody loves very much at all except perhaps the Government generally. Here again, I like to feel that in relation to this Bill the Minister's hands have been rather firmly tied. It may be a fantastic theory, but I also like to think that he would have liked to be more flexible than he has been.
I think there is a great deal of substance in the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that no substantial amendments have been accepted at all. Apart from those put forward by the Government, the only three amendments which have been passed were those on which the Government were defeated in this House: the one on Clause 1 dealing with the charitable housing trust, and the amendments dealing with the elderly and disabled. They all had extremely good and respectable majorities. Unfortunately, the one dealing with the housing associations was pipped at the post by five votes. I think the Government should be aware that there is, to put it at its mildest, a lot of unease about this provision. Despite what the Minister has said, it does give preferential treatment to certain people and I think, as has been pointed out, it is inequitable.
Three amendments were won in this House, not just by the Opposition but with the support of all parties and the Cross-Benches. I beg—I feel this must be felt very strongly by all your Lordships—that when those amendments go to another place the Government will leave them alone. They are now simple and easy to administer. I fear that if the Government start trying to tamper with them and try to dilute them, not only will the result be less beneficial to the elderly, disabled and those who are concerned with charitable trusts, but it will also make a tremendous amount of bureaucratic change; there will be greater complications than would apply to the fairly simple amendments which have been passed in this House.
This House is a revising Chamber. We have always been considered to act as a brake on another place.

845
whether the Government is a Conservative or Labour Government. When the Government sitting in another place have the sort of majority which the present Government have, the responsibility of this House is very great indeed. It is essential that notice should be taken of what is done in this House which, after all, is done with great consideration: it is not done frivolously; it is done with very careful work and people listen hard to the arguments. This is really not only a part of good government but an essential ingredient in our democracy.
With that last word, I beg the Government to leave well alone and be thankful for large mercies, in that they were not defeated more often.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton has had to leave for his northern fastness, and I stand here as a shadow of his former self! In saying that, I must add that one of the things which has brought joy to our hearts on these Benches is the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, obviously back in good form from his recent illness. I am very grateful for expressions which have come from all parts of the House on that issue.
I have not taken a great part up front in this Bill, but I have been watching, as it were, from the Deputy Whip's seat. It seems to me that the House has been at its best on occasions in the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. I urge the Government to listen to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on the question of the amendments relating to the elderly, disabled and charitable housing associations. I think it would be a mistake for the Government in absolute terms if they tried to dilute those amendments, and it would be a mistake in constitutional terms if they tried at this stage to make any serious changes to them.
Having said that, I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy, and those others from all parts of your Lordships' House who have given this Bill tremendous attention. Although it is not a Bill which I think we rejoice over, it is now a better Bill than when it came to us.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, inevitably at this stage of any Bill there is a slight feeling of nostalgia: the Minister, having virtually got his Bill, says it was a famous victory; and the Opposition Front Bench, having carried three substantial amendments against the Government, also says it was a famous victory. Then, perhaps, comes the voice of little Peterkin—perhaps from the Cross-Benches— asking what it was all about, and both Front Benches say in unison, "We truly do not know, but 'twas a famous victory."
That is not at all the picture I get from the discussion on this Bill. Both Front Benches have a worthy cause, which they know very well, and they have vindicated those causes with great cogency. The Government believe that they are achieving something of great social good: namely, that humble fellow citizens of ours are enabled to make the great leap forward from proletarian to property owner, and that money spent on that is money well spent. On the other hand, the Opposition are conscious—and I think this is
846
conceded—that the great bulk of those who want to rent property must look for the foreseeable future to local authorities. They are afraid that the stock of such housing is being attenuated by what the Government are seeking to do. Indeed, they feel that the money spent would be better spent on replenishing the housing stock.
As always, where you get two causes which are worthwhile, the question is: where shall the line be drawn? The only hesitation I have in my admiration for the conduct of this Bill by the noble Lord the Minister is that perhaps he tried too much to carry everything to its logical conclusion: the right to buy shall be carried into every corner of the housing market. It was my objection to that in relation to old people's housing which first brought me into your Lordships' deliberations.
I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. that it would be a great pity now if the decision of your Lordships' House were to be disturbed: not only on constitutional grounds, but I think we would get immensely complicated legislation if that suggested by the noble Lord the Minister were now sought to be imposed; namely, the abrogation of exemption from the claw-back of discount in the case of a disposal by vesting on testacy or intestacy; secondly, by trying to hive off the rural areas. So far as the latter is concerned, I do not believe it has worked at all successfully so far as the 1980 Act is concerned and will lead to great anomalies. It will not help an area like Scarborough, which asked me to intervene: a popular seaside resort with a rural hinterland and with 25 per cent. of the population of pensionable age. There must be dozens of similar places.
As for the other specific, I think the Government will get into great trouble in the case of a contract to leave property by will or by intestacy against which consideration has been advanced by the children or other members of the family. The Minister, with his great punctilio, whenever I have written about this, has replied that the Government had no evidence of any such thing having happened under the 1980 Act. It was pointed out to me, I think rightly, that that is not surprising as the information is not collected centrally. On the other hand, the local authority has information where such contracts have been made. Legislation to try to disentangle any such contract will be immensely complicated and will produce substantial injustice. That is all I want to say about the substance of the Bill.
I should like, again, to say something about the Bill's style. It has not really been controverted that this Bill and the way it has been produced make a mockery of two fundamental considerations in your Lordships' constitution: your Lordships' privilege and duty to advise on and consent to legislation. That cannot be done if the legislation is incomprehensible to other than a handful of your Lordships with exceptional background knowledge, with exceptional powers of industry, prepared to spend many laborious hours sorting out what this means measured against the Act which it amends, and with exceptional acumen. As I have said, no one has really endeavoured to controvert that. On this occasion, the last stages of the Bill, I wish to examine, I hope constructively, how that can be avoided in the future.

847
Before I do that I should like to be associated with the compliments which each Front Bench paid to the other. The Minister has been a model of courtesy and patience. However indignant he might have felt at what we were trying to do to his Bill, he never allowed any impatience to show for a moment and he has been admirably seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. As for the noble Baroness, it is the second Session in succession where I have seen her lead for the Opposition. I can only say that I echo entirely the compliment that was paid by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin.
It seems to me that a special compliment ought to be paid to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, not only because he obviously brings to your Lordships' House very great parliamentary gifts, but because the burden of the third day in Committee (when the noble Baroness was unfortunately indisposed) fell on him and he carried out his task admirably. In saying that, I realise that it might seem an impertinence, but I can only invoke my age and my position on the Cross-Benches. I think your Lordships have been exceptionally fortunate in the expertise which, not for the first time, your Lordships bring to bear on a very complicated measure.
The second thing I want to say before I turn to what can be done to prevent a Bill such as this coming up again is that it would be churlish not to recognise how far the Government have come to meet criticism on this matter. At first we were offered not consolidation but the Statutes in Force after an interval of four months; but by Report stage that had come down to two months, which would be the time that the Bill in any case—or Part I which is the part in question—comes into operation. I wish to say that no one for a moment doubts the good faith of the noble Lord the Minister, but to some extent we are in the hands of the Government. The undertaking was that the Statutes in Force would publish what would, in effect, be an unlegislative, unstatutory Keeling schedule. That would be within two months of their receiving the Queen's Printers' copy of the Bill. I hope that whoever replies to this debate will be able to assure your Lordships that there will be no delay, first in obtaining the Queen's Printers' copy and, secondly, in seeing that it gets into the hands of the editor of the Statutes in Force. If that is done, many of the misgivings that have been expressed will have been met, although by no means all. The other thing that we now have is a date on which the comprehensive consolidation may be expected; in other words, early next year. If so, it can go forward into the 1985 consolidation programme.
What I wanted to say about the way to avoid what has happened in this Bill falls under two headings: first, style; and. secondly, machinery. The last word on style was said by the Renton Committee. All we need to do is to get back to the Renton Report. What is desirable is that statutory language should be as near as possible to popular speech as is consistent with precision. Obviously that has not been done in this Bill.
The second point—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, at the end of the Committee stage—is that the language should be attuned, its
848
linguistic register should be appropriate, to the audience which is addressed. It will be entirely different if it is an audience of chartered accountants and tax consultants. But this is an audience of perfectly ordinary, humble, fellow-citizens of ours, advised by the citizens advice bureaux.
My Lords, the second thing on style is that the Renton Committee quoted with approval a notable memorandum by my noble and learned friends the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk, in which they pleaded for legislation in broad general terms, laying down general rules and leaving it to the courts to work them out, the intention of Parliament being made quite plain. Again, obviously, this Bill is drafted like other Bills. It is drafted with quite a different technique. So much for the style. Then for the machinery. It seems to me that things begin to go wrong fairly far back in the Government machine, probably as early as the Future Legislation Committee. They should, I suggest to your Lordships, be much more critical when they get the heads of instructions to the draftsmen on a Bill such as this, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, pointed out earlier, in effect is two different Bills.
If, to the query, "Well, will this not be controversial?" the answer is given, "No, we will draft it in such way as to limit discussion merely to the amendment which this measure makes to the principal Act"—the immediate question asked by the Future Legislation Committee should be, "Have you made timely arrangements to consolidate?" If that question had been asked in 1982 and action taken on it. none of the difficulties that were referred to by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would have been relevant. The Act could have been ready for consolidation this very Session and none of the objections which has been rightly urged against Part I would have arisen.
My Lords, so much for the Future Legislation Committee. Then there is the Legislation Committee, which examines the Bill shortly before its introduction. I presume that it has examined this Bill twice—last Session and this. If so, I can only say that it has simply not done its job. The legislation committee is not a policy committee. It examines a legislative instrument purely with a view to its drafting. If it had done that properly in this case it would immediately have seen that the Bill was not in the least perspicuous. But that means also that a Bill has to come before the legislation committee not in the week before it is introduced into Parliament but in ample time for it to be referred back to the draftsmen if necessary. I desire only to make this further suggestion about the legislation committee. It being a technical committee, I suggest that it ought always to be chaired by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and. consistently with the duties of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, all four Law Officers ought to be members. It would then be very much more effective.
My Lords, the last matter of machinery that I wish to mention is, I think, the most important. The draftsman's office is now obviously and unfortunately committed to a style of drafting in total disregard of what was recommended by the Renton Committee. They are great experts and. like anybody who has an

849
esoteric art, they are wedded to the pursuit of that art irrespective of any utility. In my time, the draftsman's office came under the Treasury, which, of course, exercised no control except over manning. Today, it comes under the Prime Minister's office, which is obviously too busy to see that the draftsmen do the job that has been repeatedly indicated to them by Parliament. I suggest that that might be considered.
My Lords, if a lesson has been learned by the indignation that has been aroused by the way this Bill has been presented stylistically to oour Lordships, then it seems to me that not only will it have served a social purpose but will have formed a valuable statutory warning.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to noble Lords of both Front Benches for the way that they have conducted themselves in handling this Bill. I think it is important, however, that we take one last look at the Bill—a Bill which has taken a great deal of parliamentary time—and review what has happened in the five years which has been its gestation period. The first thing that I should like to say, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is that this is really two Bills, and I think that it would have been much wiser if they had been handled separately. It would have been much more coherent. I cannot speak on the consolidation issue. The first of these two measures was the disposal of public sector dwelling houses and the rights of secure tenants; and the second was the supervision of building work other than by local authorities, and miscellaneous amendments relating to building work.
It is the second of these to which I wish to address myself. The Secretary of State, Mr Michael Heseltine, said in 1979:
"We want national standards nationally enforced".
But this measure will have the opposite effect as it fragments an existing service which is staffed by well-trained local authority control officers who are independent, and it makes the operation of high standards consistently applied much more difficult. It establishes alongside the local government control system, a second system through approved inspectors.
There was no evidence that there was any widespread demand for such a change, and at no stage in the five years has it been shown that there was. On the contrary, there was considerable opposition. Out of over 120 professional organisations who were canvassed, only eight supported it. I think it true that a number of these organisations want a change. They wanted a revision of building regulations but not necessarily the approved inspectors schemes. Among those who opposed were some distinguished organisations—for example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Federation of Master Builders, and the Incorporated Association of Architects—which were vitally affected. The main supporter of the change was the National House Building Council. I have great regard for the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who is the distinguished president of this organisation but the attempt by the National House Building Council to take over this
850
service rivals, in my view, the takeover by commercial television in the 1950s which Anthony Sampson, in his Anatomy of Britain, says was achieved without any great demand for it in the country and with half the Cabinet against it, including the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said at the Committee stage that he agreed with my statement that local government control officers were well trained; but, as to their working well, how did I know? I should have thought that these two usually go together. But I would say to the noble Lord that, unlike him, I have been able to watch this service at first hand during my 32 years as a member of a local authority, and especially from the time of reorganisation when, with the increased size of the units, the service has become more and more efficient. It is in my view a most efficient and dedicated service. The noble Lord brought no evidence to show that it had not worked well. I submit that in making changes of this kind the onus is on the Government to show that the change is justified and is needed, and that the new system is likely to be efficient.
It was only after I wrote this that I saw the beautiful picture in The Times of the Prime Minister and the present Secretatry of State who is quoted as saying at the Tory Party Conference in 1983:
"I am a Tory: 1 have been brought up as a Tory. I believe that the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates change. If he does not satisfy the burden of proof then the change should not be made."
That was Mr. Patrick Jenkin.
The Government have signally failed to prove either of the propositions: that it is needed or that it is likely to be efficient. There is no clear idea of how the designation system will work. The consultative process has shown an unwillingness on the part of a number of prominent professional organisations to take part, particularly the RIBA, which believes that not every person qualified as an architect has necessarily the experience to be an approved inspector, and yet does not want to discriminate between its own members. Nor is there any consensus on the qualifications needed for an approved inspector; so it is extremely doubtful whether the plan for designating authorities is going to work.
The new system makes no provision for the training of inspectors in the future, and so it will not be able to take advantage of the local knowledge which exists in the local government system, where there is a fund of accumulated knowledge in each authority about local conditions which is of the greatest value to control officers. The new system is based on the fallacy put forward by some builders that one house is the same as any other, whereas land varies considerably and even on one site there can be great variations in the subsoil from rock to chalk or even peat, to say nothing of land which over a period has been subject to flooding. All this is passed from inspector to inspector in a local authority. Not only is there no corporate memory in the new system but there will be no opportunity for the approved inspector to take part in discussions on control problems on new materials, which have been a feature of the local government control system, as the Society of Chief Building Control Officers, the Institute of Building Control Officers and the local authority associations, through their regional and

851
national bodies, have always had continuous and valuable discussions with manufacturers about these problems. These discussions have been valuable to control officers and manufacturers, and of course to people purchasing homes.
Then there is the question of cost. At the moment any professional fee is likely to be higher than the local government fee. The Minister has said that he will undertake to fix a fee for local government. I hope that he will not put the local government service at a disadvantage to prove that builders prefer the approved inspector. But one of the main weaknesses of this new system is that it will be much more difficult to achieve constant and consistent standards; and in this context may I say that any decline in standards will be damaging. I hope that when the Government come to consider the building regulations and the guidance in the approved documents they will not permit any relaxation in such matters as non-combustibility and remember that on such occasions when building standards have been relaxed or building regulations have not been applied, as is the case in certain fields, it has often led to disaster—as, for example, at Summerland in the Isle of Man.
The result is that some builders will shop around for an approved inspector whose interpretation is much more to their liking. At best, there will be variations in interpretation and, at worst, circumstances which could encourage corruption. So the choice the Government claim to be presenting is not such an attractive proposition at all. The most extraordinary thing is that, having made a great thing about this Bill for England and Wales, after consulting much the same professional bodies in Scotland, the Government concluded that there was not enough support for the scheme for approved inspectors and preferred not to implement the scheme there but to have an advisory group of professional people to look at the building regulations. What prevented the Government from applying this common-sense solution to England and Wales? The Government have not provided a credible answer to that question.
However, the greatest weakness of the scheme is undoubtedly that it shifts the emphasis from prevention to insurance. Each approved inspector will need an insurance certificate before he can issue an initial certificate to the local authority; and no one has the slightest idea of how this can be achieved. The insurance industry has made it crystal clear that they see no market for such a provision, covering in some cases considerable sums over a period of up to 15 years, which also needs to be inflation-proofed—an almost impossible calculation to make—or at least requiring premiums that no approved inspector will be able to afford.
It is said that it works well with the NHBC. But of course they are concerned only with low-rise dwellings: no extension or high-rise building or mixed development. The subscriptions of their members constitute the insurance fund. There can be no such fund for the much larger programme which will now be involved. In any case, the NHBC have only 250 inspectors working from home whereas there are at the moment some 4,000 local government control posts.
852
There are other problems about insurance: no insurance company pays out without full proof of liability and there will undoubtedly be challenges and delays—and this to people who are in difficulty, having had the house fall down or having suffered some other defect. So far there is no provision for, or even talk of, arbitration.
So we have in this Bill a measure which, in the name of choice, fragments and weakens the existing system of control which has worked well and which, even in the Government's view, is adequate for Scotland. It creates redundancy and job losses in the public service and could be an expensive alternative which cannot be relied upon to be as independent as the local government system, with inadequate guarantees of integrity built into the system. Instead, with the system of approved inspectors it will be difficult to maintain consistent standards and it is one which the insurance industry has said will not work.
It will be a long time before this Bill, in respect of Part II, becomes operative, if ever. It has taken up to five years of parliamentary time which, when the country has been facing so many problems, seems like an extravagant indulgence for what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, called "doctrinal reasons", and I believe it is doomed to fail.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for very long, but before we let this Bill pass I should like to draw attention to the fact that this is an almost classical example of what the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth described as being,
"the valuable function of a Second Chamber".
In his book, Government and Parliament, which ought to be compulsory reading for any new legislator, he says this:
"From radical days there has always been the school of thought that says 'End 'em, don't mend 'em'."
That is referring to us. He goes on:
"Some of my friends in the Labour Party still advance that slogan of earlier days. However, my own experience as Leader of the House of Commons in organising a large legislative programme convinced me that it was better to limit the powers of the House of Lords … rather than to establish single-chamber government. My principal reasons for this are severely practical, though wider constitutional considerations would arise.
"The single-chamber man may object, however, that as two Houses and not one have to examine legislation, the legislative output must be slowed down. Even this argument, in my experience, is not only untrue but more probably the reverse of the truth. When the House of Lords is examining a Bill which has come from the House of Commons it is not using up the time of the House of Commons. Usually it is improving the work of the House of Commons, often—indeed probably in the case of most amendments—at the request of the Government itself, whether the Government be Labour or Conservative.
If that work of revision were not done in the Lords, it is reasonably certain that at least one additional stage would have to be invented in the Commons in order that the work of revision could be continued. As a consequence, the work of the House of Commons would become more congested and slowed down."
This is a classical example of what the late Lord Morrison was referring to. The Commons did their work on this Bill very throughly, with six hours on Second Reading and 27 sittings over 17 days in Standing Committee. As a result of their examination of this Bill, when it came to this House the Government themselves put down 27 amendments for

853
the Committee stage and 19 more amendments for the Report stage.
If there were no Second Chamber, what would have been the alternative? There would have been an extra stage in the House of Commons where there would have been opportunity for filibuster and, certainly, repetition of arguments. Revision in this House does not consume the Commons' time. Many amendments are not controversial and some were promised by the Government in the Commons. When I happened to meet the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, the other day, I mentioned to him that, largely as a result of his invention of life peerages, the Government here has sustained three defeats, to which he made the typical reply "Ah, yes, the old complaint about an inbred Conservative bloc now applies not to the Lords but to the Commons".
Still on a lighter note, the late Lord Salisbury, when the Government wanted to introduce some controversial measure, indicated his doubts as to whether it would get through the Lords. One of his colleagues from the Commons asked, "But couldn't you issue a three-line Whip and bring in the backwoodsmen?" to which Lord Salisbury is said to have replied, "If you are referring to those Peers who, owing to residence far from Westminster, are not regular in their attendance, I suppose we could issue a special Whip, but neither the Chief Whip nor I know how they would vote when they got here". Another Conservative ex-leader of this House who, happily, is still with us, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in his autobiography makes the remark that whereas Whipping in the Commons is a science, in the Lords it is an art. That indicates that always this House has exercised its revising functions with a sense of responsibility, and that has certainly been the case with this Bill.
Saying that does not preclude me from echoing the regrets that have been expressed because the Government have not seen fit to accept any of the amendments that were put forward, but had to sustain a defeat. But I recognise what my noble friend the Minister said, that the arguments put forward have influenced the amendments that have been put down. The smooth working of this Chamber is very dependent upon the co-operation of the Opposition. I should like to express admiration for the way in which they have taken a constuctive, or a destructive, part in this Bill—all the more because they neither have the assistance of civil servants, nor do most of them obtain any remuneration at all. The fact that there are so many life Peers, as a result of legislation by the Government of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, has also enabled the revision to be of a very impartial and detached kind.
If the argument of Lord Morrison appears to be amunition for the Conservative Party in seeking to preserve a second Chamber, I think it is also an argument that can be used by those responsible members of the Opposition who are not in favour of single chamber government. I conclude by saying once more that all this was foreseen by the late Lord Morrison, who was the most skilful Leader of the House of Commons under whom, in any sense, I served in the course of 25 years there.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should like to say one word, if I may, to underline very strongly what has been so well said about Part II of this Bill. I shall not elaborate on the arguments, because they have been very well put in Committee and at Report stage, as well as by the noble Lord who has just spoken. But I personally have very great concern lest we may in this Part II of the Bill, with the approved inspector system supported by an undefined and unworked out system of insurance, be launching upon the public a regime of liability which will lead to considerable disappointment, frustration and injustice. All this will be in place of the existing system of liability at common law of building inspectors, which has been worked out with great care by the courts and which, with one exception—namely, that of latent damage, which is under examination—is working perfectly well and has not called for any substitution. I feel very great concern that we shall be parting with that Part of the Bill without having given it and the proposed insurance scheme very careful parliamentary scrutiny. I regret very much that that has happened.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

European Assembly Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1984
6.57 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Assembly Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved. With the leave of the House, I propose to speak also to the draft orders for England and for Wales which were laid before the House on 28th March and 6th March respectively.
These orders will give effect to the final recommendations contained in the reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for Scotland, England and Wales on their reviews of the European Assembly constituencies created for the first European elections in 1979. Article 2 of each order replaces the existing European Assembly constituencies in the country concerned with the constituencies described in the schedule. All three orders have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and approved in another place. If they are approved by your Lordships tonight, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will submit them to Her Majesty in Council on 11th April to be made. The orders will come into operation immediately and will therefore be effective for the next European elections on 14th June.
The reviews of the existing European Assembly constituencies had to be undertaken immediately after the making of the Parliamentary Constituencies Orders in March 1983 and have taken less than one year to complete. During this period, the commissions have had to formulate their provisional recommendations and to hold local inquiries into them. The English and Scottish commissions have also had to publish revised recommendations and invite representations upon them. These are vital but time-

855
consuming tasks and the commissions and their small staffs are to be congratulated for managing to complete them and submit their reports in time for their recommendations to be implemented for the elections on 14th June.
The rules which the commission must observe in conducting such reviews are set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. These rules differ from those for the redistribution of parliamentary constituencies, in that they do not require the commissions to take account of local government boundaries or the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies and of local ties which would be broken by such alterations. If I may summarise these rules for your Lordships, paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1978 Act provides that England, Scotland and Wales have 66, 8 and 4 constituencies, respectively. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Act states that each Assembly constituency shall comprise two or more whole parliamentary constituencies and that no parliamentary constituency shall be included partly in one Assembly constituency and partly in another. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 provides that the electorate of each European Assembly constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations. The electoral quotas for these reviews were 539,155 in England, 491,929 in Scotland and 534, 904 in Wales.
All three commissions were thus required to realign the boundaries of the present European Assembly constituencies with those of the parliamentary constit-uencies created in 1983, and to make any further changes necessary to produce electorates as close to the appropriate electoral quota as was reasonably practicable. This task seems to have caused least difficulty to the Welsh commission, who concluded that the electorates of the existing constituencies were sufficiently close to the electoral quota to allow them to leave the North Wales constituency unchanged and to recommend comparatively minor changes to the other three constituencies. The English and Scottish commissions, on the other hand, faced a more difficult task because the present European Assembly constituencies divided many parliamentary constituencies and because of increases in the electorate or shifts in the population since 1977, which had increased the disparities between the electorates of the existing seats and the electoral quota.
The English commission in particular found itself in an unenviable situation where the present constituencies divided 119 parliamentary constituencies and had electorates ranging from 15·2 per cent. below the electoral quota to 15·4 per cent. above. This meant that some disruption was inevitable and that the commission had some difficult and unpopular decisions to make. However, the fact that the commission held nine local inquiries and published revised recommendations for 16 European Assembly constituencies demonstrates the care it took in formulating its final proposals. These leave the present Hereford and Worcester, London East and London North-East constituencies unchanged and make a minor boundary alteration to the Cornwall and Plymouth, and Devon constituencies.
856
The remaining constituencies would be altered to varying degrees. Three counties—East Sussex, Norfolk and West Sussex—would form separate constituencies, while Essex and Kent would each form two whole seats. The commission has also been successful in minimising the division of counties, districts and London boroughs between constituencies and the division of constituencies between those areas.
In Scotland, the boundaries of all eight Assembly constituencies had to be realigned with those of the new parliamentary constituencies. Leaving aside the Highlands and Islands where special geographical considerations apply, the 1983 electorates of the present Assembly constituencies ranged from 4·3 per cent. below the quota in the South of Scotland to 15 per cent. above in mid-Scotland and Fife. The electorate of the Highlands and Islands seat was 36·1 per cent. below the electoral quota. This meant that the average electorate of the remaining Assembly constituencies would have to exceed the electoral quota. In general, the final recommendations of the Scottish commission make the minimum changes necessary to comply with the statutory requirements and cause the least disturbance to the present pattern of European Assembly constituencies. In addition, the changes reduce the number of districts which are divided between Assembly constituencies from more than a dozen to fewer than half a dozen.
The ultimate test of progress is whether each commission has achieved a better standard of parity than it did in 1978. The answer to that question must be in the affirmative because the relevant electorates range from 7·4 per cent. below the electoral quota to 6·4 per cent. above, compared with 9·7 per cent. below to 10·4 per cent. above in England; from 1 per cent. below the electoral quota to 11·6 per cent. above, compared with 5·9 per cent. below to 17·2 per cent. above in Scotland, excluding the Highlands and Islands; and from 3·9 per cent below the electoral quota to 6·6 per cent. above, compared with 5·2 per cent. below to 6·3 per cent. above in Wales.
In all these circumstances, the Government consider these reviews to be a job very well done. I therefore commend all three commissions' recommendations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
7.4 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for so clearly explaining these orders. The House will be pleased to know that I have no intention of dealing with individual European constituencies, except where it is necessary to refer to a principle. There are other reasons, too. First, there is the time factor. It is now 5th April. On 14th June the European Assembly elections will be held. Therefore it is impossible to attempt to seek changes, even if that were constitutionally permissible. We realise that the time factor is mainly in consequence of legislation that we passed, which provided that there should be no review of European constituencies until the United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies' reports had been accepted. At that time we expressed our apprehension

857
that we could rind ourselves faced with a last minute rush before the European Assembly elections. I should like to join the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in thanking the commissions and their staff for the fact that we have received their reports at least two months before the elections are to be held.
The second factor is that we cannot amend the orders. I do not know what happened in the other place last night. The orders must have been approved, although by the time Hansard had reached its printing cut-off point the reports had not been reached. I doubt, therefore, whether there could have been detailed discussion of the reports.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, the recommendations in all three reports have been submitted without modification. He explained the simple rules by which the three commissions had to carry out their work. May I draw attention to three paragraphs in the Scottish report. In paragraph 59 the assistant commissioner reported that in considering all the submissions made to him he was not inclined,
"to place great weight on arguments concerning the presence or absence of local ties or community of interest between different areas. There was no statutory requirement to take such matters into account, and in view of the size of assembly constituencies it appeared inevitable that in most cases they would include areas of quite diverse character and circumstances".
I shall now read a short extract from paragraph 67:
"The council"—
which in this case is the Cunningham district council—
"complained that while the assistant commissioner was not inclined to place weight on arguments concerning the presence or absence of local ties or community of interest, because there was no statutory requirement to take such matters into account, he did place considerable weight on the argument that continuity of electorate should be preserved where possible, although there was not a statutory requirement to take that matter into account".
I turn now to a short extract from paragraph 70:
"The assistant commissioner accepted that the division of Cunningham district is a disadvantage, but having considered the submissions of the inquiry he concluded that this disadvantage was outweighed by the advantage in preserving continuity of assembly constituency electorates".
I recognise that there is nothing in the rules which provides that a district council area shall not be divided; nor is there anything in the rules about preserving continuity of European constituency electorates. Nevertheless, considerable emphasis is placed in the report on that point.
It is strange that the term "continuity" should have been used. There has been only one election. It took place in 1979. If my memory serves me correctly, no local inquiries were held for the 1979 European constituencies; the commissions were not bound to hold local inquiries under certain circumstances, whereas in the case of the 1984 elections local inquiries have been held. Therefore the use of the word "continuity" seems to me to be wrong. I emphasise these points not in an attempt to change the present position, because we cannot do so, but in order that these factors may be borne in mind in the future.
Turning to the Welsh report, emphasis is placed upon geographical considerations as they affect Brecon and Radnor in relation to local community ties, whereas the rules make it quite clear that special
858
geographical considerations should be taken into account only where this is necessary in order to create electorates which are as equal as is practicable. Naturally, I shall not refer in detail to the position in England. The commissioners had a massive task to undertake. I noted in particular in Chapter 4 that 92 per cent. of the European constituencies are now, according to this report, within 6 per cent. of the electoral quota compared with only 73 per cent. of existing constituencies; and that 46 counties and London boroughs are undivided now compared with 37. Therefore, there is a great improvement in the proposals in the English report.
I should again like to refer to two paragraphs in the England report. The first refers to the inquiry conducted in Area 9:
"The assistant commissioner who held the inquiry reported that the main issue was the interpretation of the statutory requirements in Part II of Schedule 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. Some of those attending the proceedings supported our proposals and endorsed our view that the main task of the commission was to achieve parity of elections".
Then we find in paragraph 14.13:
"We considered the commissioner's advice in the light of the legal arguments which had been made at the inquiry. We confirmed our earlier conclusion, however, that if Parliament had intended us to have regard to local government boundaries, local ties, the inconvenience attendant upon the alteration of constituencies, or any one of these factors, when considering parity of representation, as it did in drafting the rules for the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons Acts, then that would have been drafted accordingly".
I completely agree that that would have been the case. But it will be seen quite clearly that undue emphasis has been placed on, first, the continuity of European constituencies; secondly, on the question of special geographical considerations—when I believe we ought carefully to take a look at the other points which have been excluded from the rules. There is nothing we can do about them in the orders, but I make these points so that these aspects may be examined for the future.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—who I am sorry is not present just at the moment—introduced this order in his usual clear and pleasant manner. But, of course, he entirely ignored the most important, unique feature of these constituencies; namely, that, unlike any constit-uencies in any of the other countries of the European Community, these constituencies are absurdly small and elect only one Member of Parliament. He did not mention that fact at all. We are looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because I wish to question what the results will be of the Government's decision and to speculate as to which considerations of public interest led the Government to make this decision.
Let us take the results. The first result will be that this decision is likely to give the Conservative Party many more seats. Psephologists tell us—and there is no need to doubt their calculations—that if the Government's share of the poll is the same in the European election as it was in the general election, then the Conservative Government will win 43 per cent. of the poll and will be rewarded with 74 per cent. of the seats. If the Alliance were to achieve the same

859
percentage of votes in the European election as they did in the general election—namely, 26 per cent. of the votes—they will secure only 1 per cent. of the seats. If the Conservative Party secure 43 per cent. of the votes, they will win 74 per cent. of the seats; if the Alliance win 26 per cent. of the votes, they will secure 1 per cent. of the seats.
I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rises, he will explain that that would be just an unfortunate accident; that nothing could be further from the purpose of the Government than to use their parliamentary majority to gain an unfair electoral advantage. I am sure he will try to explain that the system I have described is less unfair than the systems of proportional representation adopted by all the other members of the European Community.
The second result of the Government's decision will be to upset the political balance of the European Parliament. This happened after the election of the last European Parliament. A flood of Conservative MEPs, far out of proportion to the votes that they gained, made the European Parliament unrepresentative. This caused a great deal of resentment and derision. Everybody knew how it had happened. Everybody understood the motivation of the Conservative Government. It really tended to depreciate the high reputation of the British Parliament on the continent of Europe.
The third result of the decision will be that the outcome in so many constituencies will be such a foregone conclusion that British electors will not go to the polls. In the last election, only 32 per cent. of the British electorate voted—far less than in any other member country of the European Community. In Northern Ireland, where, as an exception, they have a fair electoral system of proportional representation for the European Parliament, the proportion of the electorate voting was 57 per cent. Let the noble Lord explain why only 32 per cent. of the voters went to the polls in Great Britain whereas 57 per cent. voted in Northern Ireland. The answer is, of course, that one has the first-past-the-post electoral system and the other has a proportional system.
I ask the question: what are the Government's reasons for imposing this electoral system upon the voters? The voters do not want it. All the public opinion polls show that the voters want proportional representation. So why do the Government impose the other system on the voters? We all know the familiar stock reply: "Proportional representation means coalition government which means weak government". That is not true. Proportional represent-ation does not necessarily mean coalition government. There are a number of countries having proportional representation—such as Germany and Ireland—which elect a single-party government. But those single parties do, of course, have to win the majority of the votes to form a single-party government. If one wins 51 per cent. of the votes under proportional represent-ation, one secures 51 per cent. of the seats. One can then form a single-party government and secure 100 per cent. of the jobs. What the British Government are saying when they oppose PR on these grounds is that they want 100 per cent. of the jobs with less than 50 per cent. of the votes. That is what it comes down to.
860
In any case, there is no evidence that coalition governments are weaker than single-party governments; rather the opposite. There is no evidence that the voters do not like coalition governments; public opinion polls suggest the opposite. But all this is irrelevant, as we know, because the great reason why the Government and the Conservative Party oppose proportional representation does not apply in the European elections, because the European Parliament does not produce a government at all. So what answer will the noble Lord give? What grounds of public policy justify this absurd and unique imposition on the British voters?
The noble Lord may say, "Ah!—but a MEP in a single-Member constituency can keep personal contact with his 500,000 constituents". I am in the rather unusual position of having fought two elections for the European Parliament. The first was the general European Parliament election and the second was a by-election. Indeed, I believe that I am the only person in the world who can say (because it is only here that we have by-elections for the European Parliament) that he has lost two elections for the European Parliament.
One of the truths I learned when canvassing was the total impossibility of a Member with 500,000 constituents keeping personal contact with them all; it is just nonsense and cannot be done. This is especially true because the constituencies which the Government are seeking to push through this evening correspond with no area of any significance: no area of regional government; no area of local government; no area with any historic importance; no area corresponding to the organisation of political parties; they are entirely artificial abstractions. The idea of a MEP really making personal and local contact on that basis is ridiculous.
Perhaps the noble Lord would consider this. Let us suppose that we had to have single Member constituencies for some reason. It is still possible to have a single Member constituency without biasing the election in quite so absurd and distorted a manner as the Government are proposing. There is nothing to stop the Government, if they really insist, having a single Member constituency but allowing in each of these constituencies the electors to rank each candidate in order of preference—one. two, and three. There is nothing to prevent that. It is perfectly simple. It would lessen the amount of injustice. If an elector votes for an Alliance candidate and that candidate loses, his second preference goes to a Conservative, Labour, or some other candidate.
The Conservative Government, of course, refuse to do that. They say they want a single Member constituency but refuse even to make the electoral system within a single Member constituency fair. Why do they do this? On what ground of public interest do the Government insist on the single "X" vote in the one Member constituencies? Unless the noble Lord puts forward his theory I must hazard a guess. My guess is that surveys show that many people would vote for the Alliance, but do not do so because they are afraid that if they do not vote Tory they might let in the Labour man, or if they do not vote Labour they might let in the Tory. That is a dark suspicion: but my suspicion is that the Government oppose the idea of what is called

861
the alternative vote in a single Member constituency for the same reason as they oppose proportional representation; namely, although the first-past-the-post system limits the power of electors and helps towards unfair and absured results, it has one overwhelming advantage in Conservative eyes—it produces more Conservative seats. That is the truth. Everyone here knows that that is the truth.
We shall hear a lot of arguments from the noble Lord and I shall come back a little later, after I have seen how he reacts. We have three debates. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that he was speaking to the three Motions. Quite right. Who shall stop him if he so wishes! But there are three Motions on the Order Paper, and if we wish we shall speak on each Motion. These are very important matters. What the Government are proposing is very convenient for the Government and it is also convenient for the Opposition party. But what the Government are proposing is not convenient, or may not prove to be convenient, for the minority parties, and it may not be just for the minority parties. If the minority parties want to speak at length on each of the three orders, we shall do so and nothing will stop us. Therefore, in the light of the noble Lord's reply on the first debate we shall be able to ask him further about his position on the second and third debates if we wish to.
I am sorry that not only is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate not here—that is a little unusual—but that the Leader of the House is not here, either. It would have helped a great deal to have had his advice because when he was responsible for Northern Ireland he presented a fair and democratic electoral system for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, I bet he shares responsibility for the fact that, alone in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, only in Northern Ireland will there be a fair electoral system for the European Community. I wish he were here. He invented the great slogan: "One, two, three is as easy as ABC." That was the slogan he used in order to present to the people of Northern Ireland this admirable electoral system which is fair and just which they like and which, of course, the Leader of the House warmly supports. If he were here he would support us. I have no doubt whatever that he would be supporting us and explaining the unjustice of what the Government are proposing.
Finally, to sum up as far as this debate is concerned—of course, we reserve our right to speak if we wish at any length on the other two Motions, because they are important to us—the Government have misused their majority in Parliament to impose on the electors a voting system which public opinion polls show they do not want, which ensures that millions of votes will be wasted, which is grossly unfair and undemocratic, which will distort the balance of power in the European Parliament, and which is not used by any other European Community country. But, in Conservative eyes, it has the one overwhelming advantage that it promises them a larger number of seats. In sum—and I am not exaggerating—we are faced here with a form of barefaced political corruption, and we invite the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to reassure us on the points that I have made.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I feel that there is not a great deal I can say after that concise and true exposition of the facts, but I should like to say something about the myth that one man can really represent a Euro-constituency. I fought the North East Scotland constituency at the last election and was greatly helped by the fact that it is heavily populated by my relations throughout the length and breadth of the constituency. Even so, I found it quite impossible to run a normal campaign and to keep in touch with people. I came to the conclusion that there is no question but that we would have had a fairer and a better choice for the electors if we had the whole of Scotland as one constituency with proportional representation.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord on the Labour Front Benches who was, if I may say so, cosily nibbling away at small points in the great hope that he, too, would have his turn when he could benefit from the unfair system which we have adopted. With regard to this system, I think that the Boundary Commission is a little unwise in the North East constituency of Scotland in that it has made the parliamentary constit-uencies run across the tops of the glens. If there is one thing in Angus and other places that we know it is that a river is a natural course to follow. The people who live at the top of one glen really associate with the people further down. That is a natural route. The Boundary Commission took the tops of all the glens and said, "This is the same sort of area and, therefore, we will make a constituency called North Tayside which stretches from Glen Esk right along, up to Pitlochry and beyond to Blair Atholl". The result is that the North East constituency is now even more unmanageable in that, instead of going from Fraserburgh to Dundee, which is quite a long way and covers quite a variety of people, industries and country, one now goes from Banff right up to Blair Atholl, through Pitlochry. To call this a homogenous sort of constituency is, in my view, absolutely ludicrous and the case that one has direct contact is not made at all. The electors get little choice.
I advise the Labour Party to have a look at the system because at the last election the Conservatives got a shade—just a few points; point something above a per cent.—over 50 per cent. It was marginal. But they got 60 seats, the Labour Party got 17 seats, the Nationals got one, and we got none. The split and 50 per cent. was 60 to the Tories and 18 to us. This is not a great division even for the Labour Party. I do not think that it can stand up in any justice whatsoever.
I have only one criticism of the speech of my noble friend Lord May hew. He spoke of the high reputation of the British Parliament in Europe. I doubt whether that is true. I think that our reputation in Europe is at an all-time low due to the actions of this Government and the Prime Minister. It is scandalous that we should sign the Treaty of Rome which at Article 138.3 says:
"The Assembly shall draw up proposals for election by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States".
I should very much like the Minister to tell us what we are doing to conform with that very clear article in the Treaty of Rome.

863
I could go on for some time. The facts are self-evident. The system is grossly unfair and has produced grossly unfair results. The electorate do not like it and know that it is unfair. Only 32 or 33 per cent.—a minute percentage—have voted. For the Government to sit complacently, ignoring the treaty, ignoring our members, making themselves unpopular at every hand and bringing the Community to the verge of break-up by their actions, is not good enough. The Minister now sitting on the Front Bench, who is unaccompanied by the Minister who opened the debate, is well known for his courtesy, brains and logic. He will need to exercise them to the full to satisfy our complaints.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I apologise for delaying the Minister. I do not want to speak at any length, partly because the case has been so admirably argued by both my noble friends. I should like to make three points extremely briefly. I wonder whether the Government understand with what contempt and astonishment Europeans regard their behaviour. This is a serious point. We are the only country in Europe which pursues this extraordinary electoral system. As my noble friend Lord Mayhew said, all the arguments that might be advanced against it in a particular country have no relevance at all when it comes to electing the European Parliament. If one travels abroad one realises that it is a matter of extraordinary astonishment, not only among Liberals but among Christian Democrats and Social Democrats through-out Europe, that we continue with it in defiance of the wishes, and indeed the customs, of the European Assembly. It makes Europeans think still more that we are totally out of tune with the advance towards co-operation in Europe.
Secondly, the point is sometimes advanced against the Liberal Party that it did not introduce that system when it was in power. The answer to that is that in those days the major parties did not fight every seat. The Liberal Party deliberately stood down in many seats so that the minority Labour Party could have proper representation in Parliament. Those days have gone. Now certainly the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and indeed the Alliance fight every seat at elections.
The third point that I want to make is also a serious one. I believe that there is a real danger in this country of Parliament—and I speak in the strict sense of both Houses and the whole parliamentary system—being brought into contempt. This is by no means entirely due to the electoral system. It is due to the way in which we conduct our affairs and the effectiveness of extra-parliamentary activities which very often appear to influence governments more than argument. But among the factors which I believe are at work are the obvious factors that Parliament is entirely unrepresentative, that no government since the war have had a majority and that large sections of the public are grossly underrepresented. I ask the Government to consider very seriously that it is harming the whole conception of parliamentary government to go on with this grossly unfair system
864
and that any of the arguments which might have some weight within the country are totally invalid in Europe.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not apologise for delaying the House still longer. This is a matter of very considerable importance. It is clear from the attendance in the Chamber that it is not realised on all sides of the House how significant this is. I am bound to say that in the speeches of the Lord Advocate and of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I had rarely heard a better example of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. The defence of the re-drawing of the boundaries was so elaborate, as was the discussion of Lord Underhill as to how those boundaries had been drawn. It is utter hypocrisy to go into details of that kind when large sections of the electorate are being disfranchised in this election, as they were disfranchised in the election of 1979. It leaves one with little but contempt for the way in which this whole debate is being conducted.
It also shows the contempt of the Government for the European Parliament. There have been continuous and justified complaints that the balance of power in that Parliament was entirely effected by the way in which we in this country conducted our elections. The under-representation of Liberal and Alliance opinion and the over-representation of Conservatives of course disrupted what should have gone on inside the European Parliament. We have been determined to continue with this, despite the fact that we are supposed to be having throughout the Community a uniform system of elections this time. We had excuses last time as to why it could not be done. Those excuses could possibly have been justified in the first election. There can be no justification whatsoever in this election.
I hope that we shall not be told by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Liberals of course want a system of proportional representation because it would be good for the Liberal Party. I believe it would be good for the Liberal Party. But we can equally return the remark by saying that the maintenance of the existing system is extremely good for the Conservative Party and, to a lesser extent, for the Labour Party. The difference between us is that, whereas the Conservative Party and the Labour Party defend this electoral system solely in terms of the interests of their party (which of course is a perfectly proper thing to consider), we have logic, reason and democratic principle on our side, whereas they have none of those in defending the system which they are once again putting forward for elections to the European Parliament.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I at the outset of my part in this interesting and colourful debate on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate present his apologies for being at this moment boarding an aeroplane, the business of your Lordships' House having taken a great deal longer than anticipated. I shall reply to the points addressed to him. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his reception of the orders. He properly gave his recognition, and that of many of your Lordships, to the hard and effective work of the commission in getting the orders available in time. He

865
rightly said that the report of the debate in the other place, owing to the time of the debate, has yet to be printed; but I assure him that the orders were passed.
The noble Lord also acknowledged that there were improvements, as both he and I see it, in the arrangements for England. He raised a number of points which were for the most part general points to be considered, as he put it, before the next time round the course. I think that there was only one specific illustration of the impact on what has happened this time, and that I do not regard as being as trivial as perhaps those who sit on the Benches to his right may think. He did not like the commission's decision to adopt revised proposals for the south of Scotland—Strathclyde East and Strathclyde West—which have the effect of dividing Cunningham and Strathkelvin districts between Assembly constituencies. The commission took the view, however, that the balance of advantage lay in achieving greater continuity of electorate in the Assembly constituencies under the revised proposals. I know the noble Lord's view of that, and of course it will be noted. However, the Boundary Commission is the independent body appointed by Parliament to determine the boundaries of constituencies, and I can only say that we see no reason to dissent from the view that it reached on the best solution for these seats.
Perhaps I may now turn to the battle squadrons of the Liberal Party which hove over the horizon and are turned, as under Admiral Nelson, each to fire their broadside at what no doubt they regard as the burning deck on which the single boy is left. I have to say that the tone of what they said was certainly very hostile, and I do not expect much comfort from them when I resume my seat.
But I have to remind your Lordships that what we are debating are the orders made as a result of the reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissioners for England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, and we are not debating the electoral system which those orders are devised to implement. It is in fact the electoral system which was laid down in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 to which the noble Lords and the noble Baroness on the Liberal Front Bench are addressing their ire. Perhaps that explains to some extent why the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I are rather closer together than are the noble Lords, the noble Baroness and I. But the fact is that is what we are debating, and therefore I do not propose to enter into a full-dress debate on the merits of the proportional representation system. I can answer only briefly if I am to observe the conventions of the House.
The commission is required only to recommend seats which comprise two or more whole parliamentary constituencies and which have an electorate as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable, having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations. It is not obliged, as it is during a review of parliamentary constituencies, to take account of county boundaries and the effect of any alterations on existing seats and local ties. That is in keeping with the recommendation of the all-party Select Committee on direct elections to the European Parliament in 1976 that the number of electors for the constituencies in each part of the United Kingdom should be approximately equal, subject only to the
866
making of some allowance for variations made necessary on geographical grounds.
On the specific issue of proportional representation, I regret not only that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate was not present to hear himself being accused of flagrant hypocrisy by the noble Baroness; I regret also that my noble friend the Leader of the House was not present, as he could have brought a very much heavier calibre than can I to answer the charge by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, of barefaced electoral corruption. Those are strong words. I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has it in him to repent of them, and I would not ask him to apologise. But they will stand on the record and they will be noted by my colleagues, both here and in another place.
It was, I think, in 1911 that the Liberal Party last achieved a parliamentary majority, and it was, I think, in the 1920s that the Liberal Party first espoused the cause of proportional representation. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, says that it is patently the case and patently unacceptable that the Conservative Government should perpetuate a system which gives them more votes than it gives to the Liberal Party—more seats, more votes in Parliament—but I should think that the converse is also true, and the noble Lord is complaining of a system because in part it gives his party fewer votes in Parliament and fewer seats therein.
Except in Northern Ireland, the elections will be fought under the simple majority system, and I have in fact addressed your Lordships' House on this issue on several previous occasions. It is not proper for me to do so at length now. I shall say merely that the Community treaties require the European Parliament to submit to the Council of Ministers proposals for a uniform electoral procedure for its elections through-out the Community. The Parliaments submitted proposals of this kind in March 1982. They involve a list system of proportional representation with regional constituencies of between three and 15 members each, an extension of the franchise to all nationals of a member state resident within the territory of the Community, and for polling to take place on either a Saturday or a Sunday. These proposals raise substantial difficulties for several member states, and no immediate progress seems likely.
In May 1983 the Council resolved that, although agreement could not be reached in time for the 1984 elections, efforts would be renewed to reach agreement in time for the 1989 elections. As I have said before, parliamentary time is at a premium and to construct an elaborate system in conformity with some of those proposals and not with others and then have to dismantle it and reconstruct it for the next round does not seem to us a profitable use of parliamentary time.
I do not think that the interests of your Lordships' House will be served if I reply in kind to the sort of descriptions of this Government's parliamentary activities and the parliamenary conduct of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that have been passed across the Floor of this House. I hope that your Lordships will see that we have to do a pragmatic job, which is to ensure that we are able to have these elections, and I commend this order to your Lordships.

European Assembly Constituencies (England) Order 1984
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved.—Lord Elton.)

European Assembly Constituencies (Wales) Order 1984
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, 1 do not want to extend this debate, but I want to say just two things. First, I do not regard putting a case for local community ties and putting a case for not interfering with local government boundaries as nibbling away at small points. I think they are quite important points, which I want to be looked at for the future. I am certain that the noble Baroness was not accusing me of being a hypocrite. I am certain that in her own charming way she was saying that my policies reflected that.
I am prepared to debate proportional representation any time, any place, on the right occasion. I have done so before, and I shall do so again—at the right time. I have criticised forms of PR as not being proportional representation. I do not regard STV as being proportional representation—it is a different system of elections—and I am prepared to debate that at any time, but not here tonight.
Furthermore, I recall that we had a Select Committee which dealt with the question of uniform procedure for these elections. We debated that in this Chamber, and I spoke on it. I am not criticising my colleagues in the Alliance for putting their point of view tonight. It is a good propaganda exercise for them. But I think that I have the right to put the two points that I have made on the record.

Disabled Persons Bill [H.L.]
7.48 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Constitution and proceedings of the Commission]:
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("members") insert
(", of whom not less than two shall themselves be disabled within the interpretation in section 5 of this Act,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This amendment and the next three amendments on the Marshalled List are tabled to meet points which were raised at the Committee stage by noble Lords in different parts of the House. As regards the first amendment, it would change the Bill so that at least two members of the proposed Disablement Commission would themselves be
868
disabled. That would be the minimum. Of course there could be more; there could be a majority of members who were themselves disabled. But during the debate at the Committee stage I pointed out that it could be restricting for the Secretary of State, who has to make the appointments, if the minimum was stipulated as being more than two members of the commission. It might lead to a situation where extremely suitable people in every other way might have to be excluded. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the amendment because I think it is important to have people who are themselves disabled on the commission. With a number of not less than two disabled people on a commission of between eight and 10 people, we have achieved rather more than proportional representation. However, that is quite right as the commission is dealing specifically with the problems of disablement.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford was unable to stay for the Report stage and has asked me to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his absence but nevertheless to express his support and his sympathy for the Bill. There are very few people who would challenge or even question the principle of participation embodied in the amendment.
The case in favour of the amendment was made out at Committee stage. What is a little surprising is that the principle appears to have been overlooked when the Bill was being drafted. However, I am not so certain about the proportion of two out of eight or possibly 10. The Bill, which was sponsored by my noble friend Lord Longford, put it higher. I read in the Committee stage proceedings—I regret very much that I was not present—that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, thought that it should be higher, half being non-disabled and half being disabled people. I am nevertheless glad to support the principle. What matters tonight is that the principle of participation should be embodied in the Bill. I am glad therefore to support the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has chosen to move this amendment and to incorporate it into the Bill. It is true that at an earlier stage I suggested a slightly higher proportion of people with personal experience of disablement. I think, however, that the words "not less than two" cover the case fairly well and do not impose too rigid a straitjacket on the Secretary of State. On those grounds, I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for this support. I am also grateful for the message from the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The noble Earl told me himself that he had to leave. He and I have both been piloting through Bills with different approaches, but I am grateful to him for his general support for my Bill.
As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the only reason why this was not included originally in the Bill was because I had thought it not necessary. I had assumed that the disabled would be included anyway, perhaps because

869
I am disabled myself and would fall within the category. I am glad, however, to have this improvement inserted into the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, (as corrected), at end insert (", after consultation with the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the way in which the Disablement Commission would be appointed. The question of which Ministers would be consulted and which Minister would be the appointing Minister was discussed at Committee stage. The noble Lord on the Oppositon Front Bench, then the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, disagreed with what I was proposing. I therefore withdrew my amendment and had further discussions with those concerned, including the noble Lord. Lord Ennals.
I must make clear that the amendment refers to the Bill as corrected. A correction slip was issued by those in charge of the printing of Bills because it had been assumed at Committee stage by those who record our proceedings that the amendment that I was then proposing had been made. They had been good enough to credit me with having got the amendment through, which I had not at that stage. My amendment therefore refers to the Bill as corrected by the correction slip.
The words now in Amendment No. 2 are those which have resulted from my discussions, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, tells me that he is completely satisfied with them. I believe that the amendment meets the views expressed in other parts of your Lordships' House. I should like to add that there is a convention that the simple phrase "the Secretary of State" appears in Bills and that when it appears in the first place and when it appears later in other parts of the Bill it can be any Secretary of State. Any Secretary of State can step in and perform the functions described in that part of the Bill. This is quite helpful when the Secretary of State happens to be at the other end of the world on business and is not available.
In the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, there was no description of the Secretary of State at all. He was simply referred to as the Secretary of State right the way through. I thought that it was important for the reasons I have described at earlier stages of the Bill that it should be made absolutely clear who was responsible for making appointments and who were the other Ministers who should be consulted while the appointments were being considered. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, after ("chairman") insert ("and one other member").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this raises the question of how many members of the commission should be full-time and how many part-time. The proposal in this amendment would require that at least two of the members should be full-time, including the deputy chairman. There could be more. There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State appointing them
870
all full-time, but this amendment provides a degree of flexibility in composing the commission.
When we discussed this in Committee, I pointed out that there are some people who would otherwise be totally admirable for serving on a commission of this kind but who cannot make themselves free for full-time appointments within the meaning intended in Acts of Parliament. This is particularly true of women. To retain some flexibility and not to require that a large proportion of the commission should be full-time appointments would again make it easier for the best possible people to be recruited and appointed to the commission.
Clause 2 [Duties of Commission]:
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this would leave out a subsection. From the discussions that we had at Committee stage, it was clear that others agreed with me that it was not now necessary to include a financial part in a Bill dealing mainly with discrimination against disabled people. Questions of fairness or discrimination in monetary benefits or in other financial and pension matters are now questions for the advisory committee that has in recent years been set up for this purpose. To include this financial subsection, therefore, would not be appropriate in this type of Bill. I beg to move.
Clause 5 [Interpretation]:
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
(", and "discrimination" against disabled people means—

(i) imposing conditions or requirements which will adversely affect them to an unreasonable extent, or,

(ii) treating them less favourably, on grounds of disability, without good and sufficient reason, than able-bodied people.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seem to have rather a lot to do this evening, but I make no excuse for that. Because the business of the House went on much longer than was expected, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has had to leave in order to get her last train back to Yorkshire. Therefore, she has asked me if I would, in her place, move the amendment in her name. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
I know from the discussions which have taken place since the Committee stage, that my noble friend has taken an immense amount of trouble to prepare this amendment. At the Committee stage she said that she thought—having taken some advice on this—that the inclusion of a definition of this kind would improve the Bill. I know that she also had the benefit of the legal expertise and wisdom of my noble friend Lord Renton, who suggested some additional words which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has accepted. I, too, am very happy to include this definition in the Bill.
I must explain that the version of Amendment No. 5 at which we ought to be looking is the manuscript amendment which I hope is available to all noble

871
Lords. The reason for the manuscript amendment being produced today is simply due to a misunderstanding about the order of the words in the amendment. There is no difference in the meaning, but it was considered that the noble Baroness intended the order of the words as set out in the manuscript amendment, and that order certainly improves the clarity of the amendment. I therefore beg to move the manuscript version of Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the amendment because I think that it is an improvement upon the amendment that my noble friend moved at the Committee stage and then withdrew. This amendment is more comprehensive. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the manuscript amendment is an improvement upon the amendment on the Marshalled List because, even if the English is still not breathtaking, it is at least much more comprehensible. So I am very happy to support the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too. have pleasure in supporting this amendment. I must admit that I do not have the corrected wording as regards both Amendment No. 2 and this amendment. However, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was not happy with the wording. I do not know the new wording, but if it clarifies the position then I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I believe that the Bill is improved by the inclusion of the definition of the word "discrimination". It is not an easy word to define in the context of the Bill, and it is therefore helpful that the Bill should contain a definition which is built on the concept of adverse conditions and less favourable treatment. Definitions can make for rigidity—that is the risk with definitions. But the definition proposed by the noble Baroness contains room for flexibility in both paragraphs. Moreover, if the circumstances of which a disabled person complains cannot be brought within either of the conditions specified in this definition, it may well be brought under the heading of "disadvantage" with emphasis on detriment and loss. Therefore, I am glad to support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as it is clear that copies of the manuscript amendment are not everywhere available, I think that it would be helpful if I simply read out exactly, the words which are changed. The change occurs in paragraph (ii) and the new words are:
"treating them less favourably, on grounds of disability, without good and sufficient reason, than able-bodied people".
That certainly does put the matter more clearly than in the amendment as originally drafted.

Amusement Machines Bill [H.L.]
8.5 p.m.
Clause 2 [Licences]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment may I, with respect, have the leave of your Lordships' House to speak to the other amendments standing in my name, as all are concerned with Clause 2—the power of the local authority to grant a licence.
Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 29. at end insert ("; or ( ) grant or renewal of the licence would be inappropriate, having regard to the layout, character or condition of the premises in respect of which the application is made.").
Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act the licensing authority may make an order revoking the licence.").
Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 33, at end insert ("and such requirements shall obtain as regards revocation of licence.").
Your Lordships will remember that in their original form, this amendment and the next amendment were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on Report. They were part of our composite endeavour to devise a formula of minimum intervention, requisite to deal with a social problem concerned not only with the addiction and its consequences but with the planning loopholes. The last amendment is only consequential upon this amendment and the following amendment.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I say that this amendment and the next amendment have been redistilled from their original form on Report, only in order to accommodate the drafting structure and to achieve a greater potency of the essence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness not only for her sense of constructive dedication to this particular aspect of community and social welfare, but also for her support of the principle at all stages, and her important contribution. This is but one aspect. It was spoken to on Report. It is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said, these amendments were tabled in a slightly different form at the Report stage under my name. They were discussed at that time and I give the amended form, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has brought forward now, my complete support.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to on Report; it is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this is the last amendment, I am informed by the usual channels that I may properly thank, as I would wish to do, and most

873
sincerely, all noble Lords who have spoken during the passage of this Bill. I have already paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, but as yet the debt to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has not been acknowledged. It is fair to say and it is proper, I hope, to say, that without the quality of such support this Bill would have been hard put to survive its Second Reading. The invaluable support of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on the drafting, is also particularly acknowledged.
My Lords, it is not decent to propose unless one can defend the disposal in fair discussion—and your Lordships have my assurance that every recommendation from every trade association (and there were many) that wished to make recommendations, has been received. I am grateful for the proper concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. in this regard.
Having due regard to the constraints of office, I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for what he was able to say and to my noble friend Lady Trumpington for her reticence. I should also like to thank the Public Bill Office which gave shape to the original draft, and the Whips who gave us time for a full discussion on Report.
Should any of your Lordships imagine that our labours in this particular vineyard have been in vain, a glance at last week's Monday column of the Yorkshire Post should give a strong measure of reassurance. One of Her Majesty's counsel, Mr. Nicholas Lyell—a learned friend in another place—will take this Bill from the Table. As to this amendment, it is again self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
[Printed earlier: col. 372.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the privilege amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I am about to deal with Amendment No. 4 on the Marshalled List, which has not yet been moved.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, that is the amendment to which I have just spoken.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will move it formally.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I now beg to move the privilege amendment.
On Question, amendment (privilege) made.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for all the work and commitment that he has put into bringing this Bill forward and to steering it through the House. I should also like to tell him of my great admiration for the perseverance that he has shown. Nevertheless, I should like to take this opportunity of making one or two general points about the spirit behind the Bill and the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I have shared in our attitude towards it.
We on these Benches have always made it clear— and I know that it is not really necessary for me to repeat this—that we have been concerned at the lack of control which local authorities have over the growing number of amusement arcades. We have thought this because certain of these premises, but not all—and I say this because I have received letters from owners of these premises saying that nothing ever occurs in their premises which is untoward—tend to become resorts of the sort of people with whom children should not be in contact; and, secondly, because there is growing evidence that to play fruit machines can be addictive and it is mainly young teenagers who get hooked. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has already given an instance.
In support of that I should like to quote a few lines from another article which was published in the Observer colour supplement about three weeks ago. It describes the establishment of the London branch of Young Gamblers Anonymous. A young man of 19, who set up this branch, had become an addicted gambler from starting to play the fruit machines on his way back from school. Then, when he obtained his first job at the age of 16, the addiction really seized hold of him. The article describes the escalation. It says that:
"He found himself gambling all his wages"—
which were earned at the age of 16—
"on fruit machines, eventually becoming badly overdrawn at the bank. He went on to steal from his parents to feed his habit and even made detailed plans to burgle a squash club, to try to clear his debts".
The article goes on to quote his reason for this. It says:
" 'I wasn't gambling for a big win,' he says, 'I was trying to escape from reality. I was living in a dream, waiting for my next visit to the arcade. At the same time I was destroying myself. I had no friends or interests and I felt terrible about the way I was treating my parents'".
Therefore, this article—which ends by saying that there are branches of Young Gamblers Anonymous all over the country and that more are being planned—is proof that there is a tragic incidence of addiction to gambling among young people in this country. Everything points to the fact that in many cases the addiction has been born and nurtured in amusement arcades.
Moreover, this is a fact which is recognised by other Western European countries. Perhaps I may give an example of just two countries. The present law in France, passed in July of last year, forbids cash amusement machines in public places, even including clubs. It forbids children under the age of 14 to enter

875
cafes unaccompanied, cafes being the place where space-invader-type machines tend to be located.
In Western Germany the law in this regard is less draconian, but nevertheless young people under the age of 18 are not allowed access to gambling halls; they are permitted only to gamble in open-air fairs on machines involving low sums of money, rather on the same lines as the Bill presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Surely this provides unequivocal proof that other countries recognise the risk to their children and are trying to do something to prevent it.
Finally, I support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I must confess that when he amended it at the Report stage, by which amendment children were enabled to enter arcades unaccompanied to play the low-coin machines, merely disallowing them the use of the higher-coin machines, I feared that this was too great a dilution of the Bill and that it would, indeed, be like saying that children could go into a pub, trusting them only to drink lemonade and then to go home.
Therefore, the protection against children gambling would not be in line with that against them drinking, and so in my view there was a very grave inconsistency. However, I am in favour of the provision in the Bill for the licensing authorities to revoke the licence of those establishments which disregard the safeguards for children and also those other requirements set down. I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that this is, indeed, the strongest of disincentives for the owners of the establishments to disregard the provisions of the Bill.
Therefore, perhaps the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in its diluted state, has the advantage of tempting the Government to smile upon it a little more. Perhaps the Government and the Home Office might regard it as a start and might think that these very modest measures presented by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and suggested in this Bill might be adopted as a trial to see how things work. I very much hope that this will be the line which the Government will take. I restate our great support for the spirit and purpose behind the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for the very kind remarks which he made about my noble friend and myself. Both he and the noble Baroness are well aware of the Government's attitude towards his Bill, but I should like to congratulate him on the perseverance he has shown in pursuing a matter which I know is near and dear to his heart.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I briefly say again how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for her moving and highly informative speech. The dilution was spoken to on Report. Although I accept the total responsibility in this matter, I was guided by, and expressed my gratitude to, my noble friend Lord Elton who wrote to me about it. Without taking up your Lordships' time, what he wrote seemed sound, reasonable and sensible, and I stand by the adoption. If it is too weak it is always open to the Government, as the noble Baroness has
876
suggested, to strengthen it, and that is quite easily done.
I have refrained, because it is an emotive subject, from dealing with the wide coverage that this Bill has had in the national and provincial press, but there have been some moving articles in the Evening Standard, one of the Brighton local papers, one of the Birmingham local papers, and another paper in Bradford this last week. It is a national problem which is accepted as such by the press, and in this their investigative journalism has rendered us all signal service.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Easter Act 1928
8.22 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale rose to move, That this House would welcome the coming into operation of the Easter Act 1928 to provide that Easter Day shall be the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is over half a century since Parliament passed the Easter Act 1928, and I think one is entitled to ask why is it that the Act still has not been implemented. If you ask that question to the man in the street, the answer that you are likely to get is that it must be because the churches have not managed to agree about it, but that is a popular misconception.
The 1928 Act does not mention the agreement of the churches. The nearest it gets to that is in Section 2(2). I had better read the very words—and there are few of them—in order that the matter may be absolutely clear:
"regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body".
That is a long way from saying that the churches have to agree. The World Council of Churches has 239 members, and I do not imagine that Parliament in 1928 ever supposed that all the churches in Christendom would ever agree unanimously about anything. The Churches have had over half a century in which to express their opinions and I should have thought that that was time enough. The date of Easter under the present arrangements can vary by more than a month. It can be as early as 22nd March; it can be as late as 25th April. That is dictated by the behaviour of the moon. If any noble Lord supposes that it is the real moon up in the sky upon which Mr. Neil Armstrong and Mr. Buzz Aldrin took their historic stroll, may I say that it is not. It is a notional, imaginary moon having no substance whatever. I can only say that this is surely a flimsy formula to adopt in order to commemorate I suppose possibly the most momentous event in human history.
Easter Day presumably has to be on a Sunday, and that means it can never be fixed precisely in the way that Christmas can be fixed, and that perhaps is a pleasing thought for those who like some variation in the date of Easter. But the present variation has far too wide implications. For instance, when most of us were at school I think the Lent school term was of a certain length and Easter sometimes fell in term time and sometimes in the holidays. But the present practice

877
seems to be to wrap the school holidays around Easter. That may be a perfectly proper and sensible arrangement; but it is plain that with Easter wandering about the calendar in the way that it does, that plays havoc with the length of school terms. That must be a great inconvenience to those who have to arrange the school curricula.
Then Easter is regarded by many people as the first outdoor holiday of the year—with any luck. You do not want Easter to fall in March because March is much too fickle and can never make up its mind whether it is a lamb or a lion. The chances of a decent, fine weekend must be greater in April when the sun is higher in the sky than in March. But if Easter is very late, as it is this year, it is running up close to the new May Day holiday that we introduced a few years ago. As to that matter, I think I can do no better than quote shortly from my noble leader Lady Seear, speaking at Question Time in this House on 16th April 1980, when she said (at col. 294 of Hansard):
"My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, if it is quite impossible to get a sensible arrangement over the date of Easter, it calls for a further review of our public holidays? Next year Easter falls on 19th April.".
This year it is the 22nd April.
"This means that we shall have four of our precious public holidays pushed into a period of seven and a half weeks … It is quite ridiculous to concentrate four public holidays—Good Friday, Easter Monday, the May Day holiday and the Spring Holiday—in seven and a half weeks.
Lord Belstead replied:
"My Lords, it is most unfair, but that is life."
Speaking for myself, I do not lie down quite so mildly under unfairness. I take the view that the Almighty gave us brains in order that we might use them to try to eliminate obvious unfairness of this kind.
The Act of 1928 fixes Easter in the sense that Easter cannot be earlier than 9th April nor later than 15th April. I should have thought that Parliament in 1928 got it just about right, and I should have thought that it was time for us to implement their proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House would welcome the coming into operation of the Easter Act 1928 to provide that Easter Day shall be the first Sunday after the Second Saturday in April.—(Lord Airedale.)
8.29 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, my Christian name being what it is, I reflect that today is the first Thursday after the third Sunday after St. Patrick's Day. My wife, on the other hand, whose Christian name is Mary, probably thinks upon it as being the last Thursday before the festival of St. Mary of Egypt. Some of your Lordships who think in a more secular way may think of it as the fourth day of the week following the Grand National steeplechase.
I put it all in this way for the comfort and convenience of my noble friend Lord Elton who must by this time have had his mind more or less ringing with strange nomenclatures and calculations about the sum which have been adumbrated already by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who has so admirably initiated this debate. He must have realised perfectly-well—because this in any event is in the 1928 Act—that Easter falls upon the first Sunday after the
878
full moon which happens upon or next after 21st March, which represents, in fact, the vernal equinox.
The vernal equinox was celebrated in very ancient times: even before the times of the Venerable Bede, who gave it as his opinion that Easter was named after the goddess of that name spelt either with an 'o' or an 'e'—presumably an ancient English or British goddess whose festival was celebrated at the time of the vernal equinox. The date which we celebrate as Easter, therefore, is at least celebrated by a considerable length of time and antiquity.
It has other connotations coinciding, as of course it does, from a strictly Christian point of view, with the Jewish Passover, for the Feast of the Last Supper was, indeed, the feast of the Passover. The Passover was then, and is now, celebrated on the evening of the 14th of the month of Nisan, which varies from year to year. One could go on in this way for quite a long time and get involved in all sorts of Dominical Sunday letters and notional full moons which would not really shed a great deal of light on the subject.
I do not wish to reinforce anything which has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, beyond saying that I approve of what he is proposing to do. But I will venture to bring him slightly up to date because he has quoted his noble Leader, Lady Seear, as having said, with a good deal of complaint, I think it was two years ago, that we had four bank holidays in seven-and-a-half weeks. This year we have four bank holidays in five-and-a-half weeks. If that was considered exceptional two years ago, what are we to say now?—especially when we considered that the interval after those four bank holidays before the next one is 12 weeks or three months. Holidays are getting pretty crowded about this time of the year, when we do not particularly need them, and, furthermore, the holiday season has not begun. When it does begin we shall get no bank holidays at all. The logic seems to be in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
My sole contribution to this debate is really this. I wish to try to dispose, if I can, of what I may describe, perhaps without impropriety, as a kind of long-stop argument, which year after year, for as long as I can remember during my membership of this House, has been trotted out almost inevitably as the final reason why we cannot agree on a fixed date for Easter—or on any date for Easter. It is that nobody is ever going to persuade the Orthodox Church to agree to it. Ministers who have said this have pretty well always got away with it because they could be reasonably certain that there was nobody in either House who could contradict them. It so happens that now there is. I stand before you as possibly the only member, in fact I think certainly the only member, of the Orthodox Church in either House, and I may conceivably be the only member of the Orthodox Church who has ever sat in either House. I will venture to tell you why I think that this argument does not run.
I would guess—and I hope it is not impertinent of me to make this guess—that a number of noble Lords who may be reading Hansard tomorrow will not even know what the Orthodox Church is. I will venture to explain it in 15 seconds, or a few more than that. Years ago, right back at the time at the beginning of the Christian era, there were a number of churches which might be described as loosely federated together under

879
one patriarch, head, Pope, or however you might like to think of him. After about eight or nine centuries there sprung up a movement in the West by which certain churches proposed that the Bishop of Rome—who had always been regarded, so to speak, as the senior bishop—should be regarded as the head of the whole Church. This caused a great schism, for the Western churches then came together under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome (or the Pope), and there they remained.
The Eastern churches, refusing to acknowledge any single head for all their churches, maintained their independence one of another, but under a single titular superior person called ecumenical patriarch who resided in Constantinople; and his position corresponded roughly with that of the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the Anglican communion. That is to say, he was deferred to as the primus inter pares, I think you might say, but not deferred to in the same way as the Pope. This was the first great division between East and West, and there was another division later at the Reformation by which the West split in half.
As to the date of Easter, the agreement we are talking about is the one between the churches of the West. The churches of the East, which are all in communion with each other and are known together as the Holy Orthodox Church, have never adopted this date; they have never even gone so far as to adopt the Gregorian calendar. They have not even agreed among themselves as to which calendar they should use; that is to say, they have different methods in some parts of the church for working out the moon. Their method of working out the epact is different. I am sure I need hardly tell your Lordships what an epact is. There are two definitions of the word "epact". One is the difference between the number of days in a lunar year and the number of days in a solar year. The second definition is the number of days of the age of the moon which was in the heavens at the time of New Year's day. That, I am sure, makes it crystal clear—as clear as I can make it, anyway. It does, at any rate, give room for some doubt and uncertainty as to any particular date.
There is a point in my telling your Lordships all this. Ministers say—and I hope that if I build up my forces strongly enough I shall prevent my noble friend Lord Elton from saying it—that we cannot agree among all the Churches because of the Orthodox Church; this is the sort of odd man out. That is why I call it the long-stop question: we might get all the others to agree but, no, the tiresome Orthodox Church cannot even agree among themselves.
If they do not agree with the Churches in the West, which are the ones we are really talking about, does it matter one hoot to them or to anyone else whether or not they agree on the change that is proposed here? They do not agree now. They do not have Easter on the same day. It so happens that the Orthodox Easter this year is on 22nd April—it coincides occasionally —but last year it was about a month after the Western Easter. So what is the point of saying that we cannot agree because the Orthodox Church does not agree? Does it care whether or not we in the West change our Easter? To me, this argument seems to fall totally to the ground.
880
I do hope very much that we shall leave the unfortunate Orthodox Church out of it because, speaking as an Orthodox, I really do not care at all what day you choose for your Easter. Speaking as a member of your Lordships' House, on the other hand, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is absolutely right and I support his motion.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there are probably two things that I shall never see in my lifetime; one is a fixed Easter and the other is the date on the Minutes of Proceedings printed in English.
Tradition, whether it is based on legend, belief or anything of that kind is extremely difficult to move. Most people talk about Easter because of the Easter holiday. That is what they are concerned about and what will the weather be like. So much of this erudition about the origins and the basis upon which the Man in the Moon fixes Easter is completely lost for a great many people in the country who say: "When is Easter this year? I wonder what the weather will be and whether we shall be able to get out in the garden". This is really what we are talking about.
My belief is that we ought to separate our holidays now from religious ceremonies or celebrations. That is the only way to get holidays rationalised and spread around a little more. We have paid holidays now as we never had before. We have almost a universal five-day week which we did not have before. There is an enormous amount of time off these days. We have Christmas made into a fortnight off from work. What should be a period of sober reflection upon an important historic and religious event is turned into a couple of weeks of guzzling, over-indulgence, drink, the slaughter of animals and poultry and so on. Christmas is a barbarous feast, when you come to think about it. Yet it is supposed to be related to religion; Christianity. Easter, in most people's minds, is also a question of a holiday.
Why cannot bank holidays be converted into worker holidays or national holidays? I suppose this is not how we shall face the future. I used to hear about a fixed Easter when I was a kid; that and the banning of marriage of a man to his deceased wife's sister and other prohibitions and legends of the day.
I am supporting the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in this because I am in favour of anything which re-examines so much upon which our conventions and attitudes are based. I do not know whether we are justified in having the number of holidays in such close proximity in spring as we do; we might have an early spring holiday, a later spring holiday. We have invented the May Day holiday in our time which has created another inconvenience because of its proximity to other holidays.
The only way to deal with this is to introduce a measure a few weeks before Easter to tell Parliament that it cannot rise for the Easter Recess until it has passed a Bill which fixes Easter or at least settles the matter one way or the other for the rest of this century. Then we can get on with other business.
I am sorry to be so light-hearted about this, but this is a matter of holidays and one ought to look at it in that simple way. If we cannot do anything better with

881
Easter than leave it alone, then leave it alone. For what it is worth, I am behind the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but I do not suppose that a dozen wise and noble Lords in the House will move this matter very much further. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is in his place is a good indication that he is about to get up and pour cold water over the whole proposition.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I hesitate, as always, to differ from my noble friend Lord Airedale, with whom I usually agree on almost everything, even though this is clearly no party matter. I do so because I think that the Easter Act 1928 was an extremely misconceived Act, should never have been put upon the statute book and should certainly never be brought into force. It may be argued that this is too late a stage for me to intervene. I can only plead that when the Act received its Royal Assent I was still in the womb, and if it has taken me 56 years to mount my opposition, there has equally been 56 years during which the State has, for various reasons, mostly laudable, been unwilling or unable to go ahead with this so-called reform. So my short speech tonight is in the nature of an opening shot in a battle against the Act and, in particular, against the concurrence of the Churches in the Act. For that reason I am particularly pleased to see the most reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in his place, because my argument is really directed to the Churches rather than to the Minister.
The Act is a child of its time. The year 1928 marked not only its birth and mine, but is the date of the 1928 Prayer Book, which marks what I believe to be the nadir of the relationship between Church and State in this country. I am critical of the nature of the Establishment of the Church of England. Nevertheless, I hope that this country will continue to be part of that very real entity known as Christendom. But if it is, the relationship between Church and State must be built on the strength of both. That certainly was not so in 1928. The Church not only did not have the courage of its convictions about its worship then, but apparently did not have the wish to raise the fundamental question which is involved in this Act.
That question is that of the lunar calendar. When I went back to the debates on the Act, I was not particularly surprised to find that this question was not raised in the Commons. Another place may occasionally be lunatic (if such a comment is not grossly out of order) but it is not often involved in the further reaches of psychic speculation. I was very surprised, however, to find the subject was not raised in your Lordships' House. I have not been able to get hold of the records of the Church Assembly's debates on the subject.
I am not for one second suggesting that a respect for lunar worship is tied up with the Christian religion, but it is part of our belief that the whole of nature is God's concern and that mankind as a whole has acknowledged throughout its history in the construction of its calendars that our time is swayed to some extent by two different elements: the sun and the moon. Of the two the sun is the dominant, but the moon has refused to be ignored and it should not be ignored now. The tides of the oceans which wash this planet are under the control of the moon and our bodies also answer to its sway.
882
It is, I believe, for very basic reasons that the calendars of our civilisation have acknowledged the existence of both influences. To some of your Lordships it may be that the argument I am putting forward smacks of credulity and superstition, but it is not so and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a parallel case which may illuminate our deliberations.
The method of fixing the date of Easter stems originally from the coincidence—no coincidence the Church believes—of our Lord's Passion with the Jewish Passover. The two dates became separated largely because of Christian insistence that the resurrection must be celebrated on the first day of the week; and, of course, every Sunday is also a celebration of Easter Day. But the Jewish Passover is a lunar festival and the Jewish religion is perhaps the least supersititious religion in the world's history.
I ask your Lordships to imagine what would be the reaction of the Jewish authorities should it be suggested that the Jewish Passover be changed so that it was part of the solar calendar to suit the bank holiday requirements of Gentiles? Can you imagine the State of Israel ordering its bank holidays to ignore the religious nature of its traditional festivals? The very idea is absurd. If the Christian Churches would agree on a common formula for fixing the date of Easter, that would be welcome. There would be considerable attraction for many reasons in fixing it on the 14th Nisan or, if for good reasons a Sunday was insisted on, the nearest Sunday to that date. That would go back behind the various disputes between the Eastern and the Western Churches and would underline both our fraternal—might I even say our filial—relationship with the Jewish religion and the correspondence between the exodus from Egypt and the exodus from the bondage of sin on which theologians from St. Paul onwards have insisted and which our Prayer Book still reiterates.
But failing such a happy outcome, any agreement between the Christian Churches on a common date based on the lunar cycle would seem to me to be an acceptable advance. But what it seems to me should be unacceptable to the Churches is an agreement to abandon the lunar calendar completely in order to suit secular convenience.
If the State wishes to juggle its bank holidays about, let it. It has already moved the Whitsun holiday but at least it has not forced us to celebrate Whitsun on any day except that on which the Church has traditionally celebrated it. But let not the Churches move their festivals except for theologically valid reasons!
My Lords, it is primarily for this reason that I wish to oppose this Motion. But there is one more point, perhaps a small one which affects us all, Christian or non-Christian alike. We are in the process of becoming more and more detached from the world of nature. There are those who see it as part of man's growing up. I am not one of them. I believe that the progressive abandonment of the observation of times and seasons as we secularise Sunday, delunarise Easter and perfect the storing and transport of food so that there is no such thing, virtually, any longer as seasonal food, marks a divorce of man from nature which one of these days will entail a terrible backlash. This particular Bill is a very minor step in this process but it is nonetheless a step. I believe that it should be resisted.
8.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, may I begin by making two apologies, first, for not being in my place for the opening sentences of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I had unfortunately mislaid my notes and I was taking steps to remedying my deficiency. Secondly, may I apologise for not having put down my name to speak in sufficient time for it to be upon the list. As has become already evident in this debate, the problem of the date on which Easter should be observed is not new. I will not weary your Lordships by going over such controversies as those arising in the second century on quartodecimanism or on the difficulties arising in the fourth and fifth centuries out of differences between the Roman and Alexandrian methods of computation.
I draw you attention, however, to the fact that happily by the seventh century the various ways had been reduced to three: the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman and the Celtic. Even as late as 651, Queen Eanfleda, following the Roman rule in Northumbria, was keeping Palm Sunday, and therefore fasting, while her husband Oswy, King of Northumbria, was celebrating Easter because he followed the Celtic rule. But even that difference disappeared in 669 because Archbishop Theodor imposed upon the whole of England the Roman custom, and the Celtic practice disappeared. I mention these early developments simply to indicate that although it may seem a long way off since 1928, when the Easter Act was passed, progress is possible.
At present, the differences are mainly between the Western Churches and the Orthodox Church. May I, in passing, refer to the fact that the Orthodox Church is not altogether of a mind on its date, as I was happily able to experience earlier this year when I enjoyed two Christmases. I celebrated Christmas here in this country and then I was on an official visit to the Middle East which coincided with the Orthodox Christmas in Jerusalem where the Greek Patriarch keeps it on that date and I was able to enjoy a second Christmas which included a visit with him to the Grotto in Bethlehem on Christmas night. But although they have differences, it is practically universal in the Orthodox Church to observe Easter at the same time reckoning it by the Julian, the old-style, calendar.
In the matter of seeking some agreement, the Churches are united in a desire to find a solution. In the World Council of Churches Assembly at Nairobi in 1975 (at which I was present) a statement was agreed which made this clear. Before that, the World Council of Churches had conducted an inquiry throughout the Churches and the result was the following.
"The great majority of the member churches confirm their readiness to accept a common and even fixed date of Easter, e.g., the Sunday after the second Saturday in April.
"The Orthodox Member Churches indicate that any change of the present mode of calculating Easter requires an explicit agreement of all Orthodox Churches and that, as long as such an agreement has not been reached, they feel bound to follow the present method of calculating the date.
"In a resolution adopted by the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church stated that it was prepared to accept a common mobile or fixed date for Easter if agreement between the
884
churches could be established. The Holy See has expressed its willingness to collaborate towards reaching an agreement."
There is agreement between the Churches to try to find a solution.
May I refer at this point to the distinction between a common and a fixed date. They are not the same; and this is a very important distinction to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already alluded. Common date means exactly what it says: the Churches would, while retaining the basis of the lunar month have a common date on which they would all agree. That is quite different from the fixed date. I greatly welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said about relating our lives in various ways, including the observance of Easter, to the natural rhythms of our existence. I greatly appreciate what the noble Lord had to say and it discharges me from the need to repeat some of what I had prepared in my own speech.
In 1977 there was an Orthodox consultation which went some way towards agreement towards a common Easter. I will not go into the details of that, but it was on the basis of that that the Vatican in 1977, having consulted the various episcopal conferences through-out the world, issued a letter (a copy of which I have in my hand) which was also sent formally to the Church of England and to other Churches of the Anglican Communion. If I may I will quote one or two sentences from it. This is signed by Cardinal Willibrands, who was then President of the Secretariat of Christian Unity. He said:
"The Orthodox Churches have given serious attention to this proposal. They have publicly stated their desire to see all Christians celebrate Easter together… it seems clear that if the Churches and Communities of the Western tradition were to take their own immediate decision on this proposal, this would not assist us in arriving at the goal of a common celebration by all Christians of the central mystery of their faith."
The point there is that for the Western Churches to take unilateral action in this respect would not be conducive to that expressed visible unity of the Christian Churches which many people recognise as a very desirable and necessary goal and which they would not wish to prejudice. The letter goes on:
"Under these circumstances the Holy Father has judged that the situation is not yet ripe enough for the Roman Catholic Church to change its present method of determining the date of Easter or to put it into effect this year the proposal that this great feast be celebrated on a fixed Sunday in April."
That, I understand, is the present position in the Roman Catholic Church and I think I can say it fairly represents the situation in the Church of England. Nevertheless, it would do no harm for the Churches to be given a nudge, because the process is moving. I can say that if the Government thought fit to initiate further discussions with the Churches regarding a common agreement on Easter it would help to keep the process active.
Meanwhile, may I make three points? First, it is a Christian festival that we are talking about. It is a Christian festival and, with respect, I would submit that it is for the Churches to decide, although in this country it clearly has other effects as well. I would also wish to support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said and I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that when I hear the word "rationalisation" I get very suspicious

885
because I always feel that some baby is going to be turned out with some bathwater, and we are going to lose some fundamental and essential element in our human life.
I am well aware of the problem of bank holidays in late spring and early summer. Let me give you an example, my Lords, It has been customary from time immemorial, so far as I can make out, for the Bishop of London to hold his staff meetings on Mondays. This year between the 5th April and the 28th May there are three Mondays which are bank holidays, and this presents us with great difficulties. I believe that it is unfair to blame the Church for that. It is rather like the cuckoo taking over from the bird whose nest it really is to suggest that we should deal with the problem of Easter in the way proposed and to allow secular holidays to occupy the position. I might say it does not seem to me that the practice of adopting secular holidays actually affords a very happy experience. It is precisely the adoption of secular holidays for May Day and for Whitsun which has in fact led to this unhappy situation, and I do not see why Easter should be made to carry the responsibility for it.
My third point, however, is this. The Orthodox Churches are no longer confined, as they largely were some years ago, to Eastern countries. There is a very sizeable presence here. I am very happy to know Archbishop Methodios. He is a remarkable man. I know him well and I know something of the burdens he carries in his country as Archbishop of the Greek congregation here. There are other Orthodox Churches which are represented in this country and represented by a variety of people. They are not all Greek, all Russian or all Cypriot: there is a great range.
The fixing of the date of Easter without their agreement, in my judgment, would have a divisive rather than a unifying effect in our society. They are, as is well known, largely in the great cities where the effect would be, as it were, concentrated in those places. It is not as though the effect would be spread out evenly over our country—not that that would make it any more justified, but it would not be so evident if that were the case. However, it is not the case: they are concentrated in the cities and we hear much today—and rightly so—about the need to develop harmony in our multi-cultural and multi-racial society. That is very properly so. It would not be helpful to increase the area of difference, and that is precisely what would happen if in fact the Churches of the West in this country sought to take action without carrying with them their brethren of the Orthodox Churches, who. as I say, are in this country in considerable numbers. We must act in this matter, I believe, in a way which would unite Christians in this country and not seem to add to the unhappy divisions which already exist. So I would not wish to support this Motion but I would hope that perhaps the occasion of this debate might be used to inspire, as I said, a little "nudging" to the Churches to look at the matter again.
I end by saying that for practical reasons, and for the reasons suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I do not think that it is very likely or wise that the churches should be pressed for a fixed Easter. I think the most likely thing, if the Orthodox Churches are to be carried with us, would be to have a common Easter.
886
I believe that we have a right and a duty to maintain our own feasts in the right way. If the result be that the secular holidays should be arranged separately, I should deeply regret it because, as a Christian, I believe that the great mystery of Easter is in fact of significance for all mankind and for all life. I would not wish therefore to see the celebration of Easter separated from what was a natural human occasion as well. But if it comes to the test I believe that we have to put our Christian understanding and the nature of Easter first and, if need be, allow secular holidays to take their place as seems fit to those whose responsibility it is to determine them.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for adding his name to the list of those who from time to time have drawn the attention of your Lordships' House to the provisions of the Easter Act 1928. The argument that he advanced is one which has received the attention of this House for some years, as a perusal of the Official Report will show. However, it has been thought desirable to do no more than draw attention to the measure.
As has been said, the fixing of Easter is one of great importance to the Churches, and indeed the Act acknowledges that. The festival of Easter is the greatest part of the Christian calendar and not just a bank holiday, although the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is rightly concerned on that aspect, too. Good Friday, of course,which precedes Easter Day, is a most solemn day commemorating the crucifixion and death of Christ before his resurrection on what we now term Easter Day. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to Easter as the most momentous event in human history. Therefore, the determination of the date of Easter is a matter of great concern to the Churches, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, and indeed as the 1928 Act accepts. But it is a matter of concern not only to the Anglican Church, but to the Roman Catholics and indeed not only to British Churches but to world Churches, as we have been reminded. We should also remember that for millions the Passover is of most solemn significance.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has rightly reminded us of the provisions in the Act and I would mention that they provide that before making a draft order which has to be placed before and approved by both Houses,
"regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body."
As the noble Lord invokes the 1928 Act, he will also rightly accept its requirements. I recognise that the noble Lord has done a service, not least by using this particular peg to draw attention to the need for some rationalisation of public holidays. I would remind him that at present there is no doubt about the date of future Easters. There is no uncertainty about it, because the Prayer Book details them right up to the second decade of the next century. I think I am right in saying that. When my attention wanders during some sermons, it is surprising what one can read in the Prayer Book. Therefore, the dates are already fixed and nationally accepted for many years to come, which is very helpful to the tourist trade and to many others.

887
I wish to show a degree of neutrality on this matter and suggest that the Churches and others may wish to consider your Lordships' comments. But the case of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, which is also supported by my noble friend Lord Houghton, for a change arises from the nearness of bank holidays, including May Day. This year, Easter Day is on the 22nd April, May Day is on the 7th May, spring bank holiday is on the 28th May and Whit Sunday is on the 10th June. Doubtless, when the bank holidays of May Day and spring bank holiday were fixed more recently than the 1928 Act, regard was paid to the long-established formula for fixing Easter several decades into the future.
This debate is useful because there may be a good reason to have public holidays reasonably spaced, not least to make life less complicated for working people, students, tourists and many others. The question arises as to whether invoking an Act which was passed in 1928, many years ago, with its special requirements, is the best way to achieve it when there may be other ways.
We should not overlook the fact that the EEC, for instance, of which we are a member is also associated in the minds of many with surpluses. European countries appear to have many more public holidays than the United Kingdom and it is surely one of the surpluses that we should not be aiming to dispose of, especially when the microchip age is gaining pace and for many, either rightly or wrongly, provides more time for leisure. I venture to suggest that getting harmonisation with the EEC on the matter of holidays would be no easier than getting it with the Churches, if one were to invoke the 1928 Act.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for drawing attention to the provisions of the Act, but also, and more important, for his service in drawing attention to the problems of public holidays and to the need for rational spacing. Whatever changes are sought in the fixing of public holidays, they will in any case require consultation with many more interests than the Churches under the 1928 Act. I believe that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said, this is a matter that could be considered and I think that initiatives for such changes may now be timely.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I can safely say that this debate has been both shorter and more interesting than many to which one listens in your Lordships' House, and it has covered a great deal of interesting ground. I do, indeed, well understand the frustration which afflicts those who would like to modernise the mechanism by which the date of Easter is chosen. They would like to pin it tidily down in one place, rather than see it wander about the calendar. That would fit in much better with our modern, secular way of doing things. There is indeed, as they remind us, an Act which has been waiting patiently on the statute book ever since 1928 for just this purpose.
Much of the impatience is understandably secular. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is as concerned as is the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, over the variability of the weather at Easter, though if the date were fixed in these islands I doubt very much
888
whether the weather would be any more reliable or clement than it now is. But that is a note in passing. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is concerned about school holidays. These are all practical matters, and I understand the impatience. Some of the impatience is perhaps more ecclesiastical. Until I heard the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I had thought that I was probably alone among your Lordships in having mastered, in the long and meandering reaches of many childhood sermons, the mysteries of the golden number for the calculation of Easter in the opening pages of the Book of Common Prayer. On this issue we have to become a little conditioned to patience.
If we look at the issue at all closely, we discover that 56 years is a very short time. The Act which the Easter Act has been poised for half a century to supersede is a recently arrived item on the statute book, having been on it for only 234 years, since 1750, but it meticulously reproduces a mechanism of very great seniority. The method, as I calculate it, has been in working order for at least the 1,659 years which separate us from the council held in Nicaea in 325 AD. However, the right reverend Prelate, with greater erudition than I can command, has suggested that it goes back further still. I would not challenge him on that point. As he has reminded us, there have been earlier reviews, notably that of the Synod of Whitby in 664, when opinion and practice in England were divided on this and a number of other matters between the Roman and the Celtic rite. Tempers ran a little high, if I remember my Bede, and the debate was long, but in the end it all was decided on uniformity and the system established at Nicaea prevailed. The synod—again I find that I am treading in the footsteps of the right reverend Prelate—was convened by Oswiu, King of Northumbria, but I think I am right in saying that the debate and the decisions were largely carried by the clergy and the monks. That must remind us that what we are dealing with is not a whim of antiquarians but a matter central to the concerns of several branches of the Christian faith.
Churchmen among your Lordships will not need me to explain that Easter, preceded by Good Friday and followed by Whit Sunday, marks the very focus of the joyful and saving reality of the Christian faith. Feasting is not guzzling, and not all celebrations are secular, even on ecclesiastical festivals. Nor, very sadly, do I have to remind your Lordships that there are in that faith more Churches than one. Very properly, therefore, the draftsman of the Easter Act provided in Section 2(2) that before a draft order can be made
"regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or Christian body".
That is an important provision, and one which must be strictly observed. It does not enjoin conformity, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate that conformity is very desirable indeed. It is proper that we should look for unity, or at least for a coincidence of views. The last thing we want to finish up with is different Easter Sundays for our different Churches, none necessarily coinciding with the secular optimum. If we were to implement the Easter Act, leaving out the Orthodox Easter but embracing the Easters of the other Churches, in many years we should finish up with two Easter Days. If we were to leave out the

889
Orthodox Church and the other Churches, we should end up, in nine years out of 17, with three Easter Sundays. That would be regrettable.
There is also a secular side to uniformity. The Act of 1750 dealt with the calendar in general as well as with the movable date for Easter. A principal purpose of those who drafted the Act, which they acknowledged in the preamble, was that the existing method of computation, and again I quote:
"according to which the year beginneth on the twenty-fifth day of March",
—and that caused me some surprise—
"hath been found by experience to be attended by divers inconveniences not only as it differs from the usage of neighbouring nations, but also from the legal method of computation in that part of Great Britain called Scotland … and thereby frequent mistakes are occasioned… ".
It would be very untoward, therefore, for us to finish up with different national dates for Easter when what we are trying to do is to harmonise the existing Western and Eastern Orthodox dates and fix them at a single and perhaps static point on the calendar.
But all is not gloom for modernisers such as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It does appear that in the past 10 to 15 years the Churches have tended increasingly towards a consensus of view on a common date for Easter. I am clear that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery speaks as a member of the Orthodox Church. But 1 am not entirely clear if he speaks for the Orthodox Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain on the matter. I have to tell him that, in any case, for the reasons very ably expounded by the right reverend Prelate, the other Churches within the British Council of Churches have indicated that they would be reluctant to reach an agreement which would exclude the 14 patriarchates of the Orthodox Church.
Perhaps I may go on to say that there is a convergence of views, although not necessarily—and, again, the right reverend Prelate has preceded me in this; and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will be pleased to hear this—towards a date that is fixed; the influence of the moon is likely to be with us for a while yet.
It would be premature to expect an early decision or to try to anticipate it, but I believe it is proper to await it with perhaps just a fraction of impatience—sufficient to be visible to the various hierarchies engaged in trying to come to a mutual and welcome conformity. Sub specie aeternitatis, my Lords—or, at least, post-Nicaea—the time that has elapsed since this Private Member's Bill was passed is not so very long. The Churches are well aware from our regular contacts with them of our interests in their conclusions. For the present, I think we should maintain this contact and keep our options open. But perhaps the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, your Lordships' evident impatience, and the right reverend Prelate's speech, will together provide the helpful nudge that seems to be in order.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I always thought that at the end of it I should be better informed than I was at the beginning. I have not been disappointed, and when I have read Hansard
890
tomorrow I shall be better informed still, by a large degree.
The right reverend Prelate spoke of celebrating two Christmases. The late Lord Beveridge used to celebrate two birthdays. His mother thought that his birthday was 6th March, but when she had to produce his birth certificate for his public school she found to her surprise that it showed his birthday as being the 7th March. "Since when", said Lord Beveridge to me on one occasion, "I have celebrated both these dates".
If the nudge I have managed to give the Government can ricochet in the direction of the Churches—and we understand that this will not be unwelcome—then the debate will have served a useful purpose. I do not believe it would do any good dividing the House because I do not suppose there is a quorum. I believe my best course is to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Opposed Provisions with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past nine oclock.

  SACEUR: RESPONSIBILITY
  SACEUR: RESPONSIBILITY
  RN GUIDED WEAPON TENDERS: EXCHANGE RATES
  RN GUIDED WEAPON TENDERS: EXCHANGE RATES
  SEGREGATED PRISONERS: EARNINGS
  SEGREGATED PRISONERS: EARNINGS
  HOME IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES: APPROVAL TIME
  HOME IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES: APPROVAL TIME
  HOME IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES: DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
  HOME IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES: DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
  IRISH BORDERS: EEC PROPOSALS
  IRISH BORDERS: EEC PROPOSALS
  ANGLERS' LEAD SPLIT-SHOT
  ANGLERS' LEAD SPLIT-SHOT
  HONG KONG: AIRPORT
  HONG KONG: AIRPORT
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  COMMON SEAL PUPS
  COMMON SEAL PUPS