Sitting of 6 December 1984

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

    North Sea Herring
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in negotiations between the European Economic Community and Norway on the shareout of the herring stock in the North sea.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): Negotiations between the Community and Norway on the arrangements for 1985 under the EC-Norway fisheries framework agreement are continuing. While there has been some progress, no agreement has so far been reached on the respective allocations to the Community and to Norway for herring in the North sea.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that informative reply. Will he assure the House that when the negotiations continue on 11 and 12 December in Oslo he will ensure that, if there is any question of an agreement being reached on herring stocks in particular, he will safeguard the interests of the British fleet in order to ensure that total allowable catches are not reduced?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that at the Council meeting on Tuesday this week the Council insisted on maintaining the Commission's firm line on negotiations on Norway's herring demands, which we regard as unreasonable. That was the position that we took. It is better to delay rather than rush negotiations in order to arrive at an acceptable conclusion.
    Dr. Godman: While the Minister is dealing with fisheries agreements between the EEC and other maritime nations, will he tell us whether it is true that one of the major remaining stumbling blocks in the current continuing negotiations between Spain and the EEC is a fisheries agreement? What concessions are likely to be made by the EEC to Spain over fisheries, and what concessions will the EEC demand of Spain in the negotiations?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will have seen that agreement was reached at the Council this week on the negotiating position that the Community should take in relation to fisheries and enlargement. The Community
    482
    is taking a firm line to protect British fishery interests. It would obviously be unwise to reveal the entire negotiating position, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decisions reached this week at the summit were satisfactory to us.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister accept that it might have been to the convenience of the House if he had answered written question No. 122 today in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on the outcome of the meeting of the Council on this question rather than try to hide it away in a written answer?
    Mr. MacGregor: I would have much preferred to answer it now, but it is a lengthy answer which will be given later this afternoon. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and wish that it could have been taken into account today.

    Milk
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the Government's attitude towards the milk co-responsibility levy.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The Government are opposed to the co-responsibility levy, since it has not been effective in controlling the milk surplus.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the previous justification for the levy might have been, the introduction of milk quotas and the super levy have rendered it completely unnecessary? Does he hold out much prospect of getting rid of it in the near future?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that when we reach the next price fixing in the early months of next year we shall be able to obtain a cut in the levy in the context of a tough prices policy.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that farmers in Northern Ireland will pay almost £7 million this year in co-responsibility levy on top of £5 millon in dairy quota levy? Will the Minister assure the House that he will add his weight to the abolition of the co-responsibility levy, as it is now unnecessary after the introduction of dairy quotas?
    Mr. Jopling: I am intrigued to hear the hon. Gentleman's comment about the level of dairy quota levy that might be payable in Northern Ireland for this year, because he is making assumptions about the amount of milk likely to be produced between now and the end of March. As I said, we are opposed to the co-responsibility levy and will seek a cut.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Which, if any, members of the EEC favour the retention of the levy following the introduction of quotas instead of financial measures?
    Mr. Jopling: I regret to say that some EEC member states are in favour of the co-responsibility levy in varying degrees. If none had been, it would have been easier to get rid of the thing.
    Mr. Torney: As the dairy quota scheme seems to have overtaken the co-responsibility levy, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the scheme is being operated adequately by other member countries, particularly France, in the way that Britain is honouring it?
    Mr. Jopling: I have no grounds for supposing that the co-responsibility levy is being improperly or illegally implemented in any member state. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that, I hope that he will send it to me with the greatest possible urgency.
    Mr. Harris: Instead of hoping for a cut, will my right hon. Friend go further and press for the complete abolition of this discredited levy?
    Mr. Jopling: The problem that we must face is that if we were simply to scrap the levy without at the same time operating a firm prices policy we could create possibilities of there being incentives at some future time to increase milk production in the event of the quota scheme being abandoned. I still hope that at the end of the five-year period we shall be able to abandon the quota scheme and return to a market that is managed, as it should be, by the discipline of price.

    Aujeszky's Disease
    Mr. Freudasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the evaluation and administration of claims by his Department as a result of Aujeszky's disease; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): A number of representations have been made about the Aujuezky's disease control and eradication programme, in particular in relation to the cost of the scheme and the Ministry's handling of the salvage operation. My right hon. Friend the Minister answered questions on these points at a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Agriculture, making it clear that he did not accept these criticisms.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary reconsider her decision not to give further assistance to the eradication scheme? Will she accept that pig farmers are the most ill-fated of the members of the National Farmers Union, and will she do something to help them?
    Mrs. Fenner: No, Sir. The industry opted for the scheme after a second poll and did so on the basis of the industry paying for the scheme. The second poll enforced that.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary stop trying to get round the fact that the scheme has already cost more than twice as much as the Department originally estimated and is now adrift by about £15 million? Do the Government want to eradicate Aujeszky's disease? If so, why will the Minister not accept responsibility to underwrite a fair proportion of the cost?
    Mrs. Fenner: I welcome the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to the Dispatch Box. Estimates at the inception of disease control programmes are necessarily speculative. The producer poll form—the original document—emphasised the difficulties of estimating and stated that the net cost might be at least £6 million, excluding consequential loss payments of £3·5 million, paid against Ministry advice, and interest payments.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend accept that the cost was £27 million and that at the present moment the
    484
    actual debt due on Aujeszky's disease eradication is £15·4 million? Should not the Minister consider that and not penalise the producers?
    Mrs. Fenner: As I have just said, at the second poll the producers asked for matters to be arranged in this way and they did so on the basis that the pig disease eradication fund would pay.

    "The Way Forward"
    Mr. Baldryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's response to the National Farmers Union's policy paper, "The Way Forward."
    Mr. Jopling: This is in general a helpful statement of the National Farmers Union's views on the directions which future agricultural policy should take. I look forward to reading the more detailed paper which the NFU is now producing.
    Mr. Baldry: Does not that policy paper show that the NFU is anxious to contribute to a policy of responsible use of resources on the land, but that it is confused about what the rest of society wants from it? As agriculture has been successful for many years and has produced ever more food, the NFU now regards the problem of surpluses as one on which society says that it does not want so much food. In addition to a more detailed paper from the NFU, would there not be some merit in the Government producing a White Paper on what we want farmers to produce and future agricultural policy?
    Mr. Jopling: The Government have worked extremely hard on these lines for several months. As part of our thoughts on these matters we are interested to have the views of the NFU and other similar bodies. We must get the general guidelines that we think it right to give clear in our minds before thinking about what method might be used to put out those views.
    Mr. Ron Davis: Is the Minister not somewhat embarrassed by the fact that the NFU is now proving to be more radical in terms of agricultural policy than the Government? Is he aware that the report calls for a better relationship and a different approach to agriculture so that environmental objectives can be properly taken into account? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any firm objectives to meet in response to the NFU's paper?
    Mr. Jopling: I welcome the NFU's views on conservation matters. Farmers and others have welcomed initiatives that my Ministry has taken. Perhaps I could draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to our initiative in Brussels to introduce conservation matters to the new structures directive, which we shall discuss again in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday.
    Mr. Cockeram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the NFU accepts that there is a need to restrain the production of agricultural surpluses, that represents a unique opportunity for the partnership between the Government and agriculture to plan the future? Will my right hon. Friend take an initiative in that respect?
    Mr. Jopling: We are all glad that the NFU has been sufficiently responsible to recognise that it is not possible to continue having an agricultural policy which is based on increasing production almost at any price. We must

    485
    consider together how to cope with surpluses. The problems of structural surpluses generally arise from support price levels. I hope that we can get an agreement that action on prices is the right response to the problem.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister tell the NFU that the Think Tank report of November 1983 forecast that subsidies for British farming in 1984–85 would be £1,000 million and that that, added to CAP assistance, would be equivalent to a subsidy of £20,000 per farmer? As farmers do not pay rates, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister after he has met the NFU and ask how the Government can manage to subsidise farmers to that extent when somehow or other they cannot manage to look after pits and miners? We are not after £20,000 per miner—we will settle for less than that.
    Mr. Jopling: I do not want to make any remarks about the current miners' dispute. If every group in Britain had made the contribution to the British economy that agriculture has made since the war, Britain would be a great deal better off.

    Diet and Disease (Report)
    Sir Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has come to any decisions about the report of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy on Diet and Disease.
    Mrs. Fenner: Our officials are examining those recommendations of the report which fall within our responsibility, and are discussing their implications with interested parties. We hope to be able to make an announcement of our response to the report within the next three months.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a greater threat to the dairy industry than milk quotas is the health lobby? The continually declining level of consumption of milk products must be taken seriously by the Government. Will she also bear in mind that doctors and others have phases and fads? A few years ago we were told not to eat bread and potatoes, but now we have to eat them for roughage purposes, and some of us are chewing the cud in the evenings.
    Mrs. Fenner: The report recognises that the evidence is short of proof, but the recommendations are based on a careful review of all the available evidence, and the report represents the best scientific and medical advice that is available to the Government. The nation's health is of vital importance. Changes in diet resulting from that report will not take place overnight. They will result from consumer choice. The trend to healthy diet has already begun and is not an attack on a particular sector. I assure my hon. Friend that consumers are free to choose their own healthy diet.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister not ashamed of the United Kingdom's conspicuous placing in the world's coronary league? The separate countries of the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—are in three of the top five places for males — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am going to say it anyway. And in two — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] of the top five for females, for cardiovascular disease.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Fenner rose—
    Mr. Cohen: I have not finished yet, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have a quick look at his question, but he should not read it.
    Mr. Cohen: I am going to have my say, because this is an important matter.
    Does, the Minister share the concern of the medical profession for Government action to improve food quality? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Why do the Government not take preventive measures such as those that have been adopted in the United States, Canada, Australia and Scandinavian countries, which have had an impact on heart disease, or has she completely sold out to the vested interests in the big food corporations?
    Mrs. Fenner: Of course the Government are concerned, and that is why COMA produced this considerable report, which we are studying. We are also looking at the ways in which we can implement those recommendations that require action by my Department.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: I welcome the tinge of encouragement in the Minister's reply, but does she accept that not enough is done towards the prevention of disease rather than trying to cure it? Will she use her influence on her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and bring to bear whatever powers she can to make him realise the crucial need for prevention?
    Mrs. Fenner: The import of the report was to encourage prevention. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. At the moment we are looking at the practicalities of the problems of labelling food with a fat content. We are having discussions with consumers and enforcement authorities on the best way to do this. We are commissioning a study of consumer attitudes and understandings of labelling, because if we are to label we want to be sure that the labels are intelligible. We are discussing with the drink trade alcoholic strength labelling, and we are discussing with industry how it can introduce ways to produce food with less fat and less salt. I am sorry to answer at some length, but the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) questioned the action that we are taking, so I have told him about it.

    Eggs, Poultry and Pigmeat
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, following recent reductions in cereal prices, there has been an increase in the United Kingdom's production of eggs, poultry and pigmeat.
    Mr. MacGregor: It is too early for the recent fall in cereal prices to have been reflected in the production levels of intensive livestock.
    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the cyclical nature of the intensive livestock sector, does my hon. Friend believe that reduced cereal prices will have a long-term benefit for that sector, especially as regards its competitiveness in the Common Market?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree that it will have a considerable beneficial effect. In the many discussions that I have with the industry, especially the pig industry, we are agreed that one of the main ways in which it can be benefited is through lower feeding stuff prices. That is one of the areas where the Government can help most

    487
    while maintaining our efforts in the Community to get longer-term restraint on cereal prices. That helps both with margins for producers and in making sure that the products are competitive. But I agree with the Select Committee, which pointed out that the problem of cyclical instability will not be resolved by adjustments to prices of feeding stuffs alone and therefore that it is necessary to continue to have action within the industry on marketing, processing and matching output to demand.
    Mr. Home Robertson: In reviewing the prices and the production of these commodities, will the Minister assure the House that he will not favour the closure of uneconomic farms or the obliteration of agricultural communities? Will he also commend that enlightened policy so that it can be adopted by another member of the Administration in another strategic and vital primary industry?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is essential to get the support pricing policy right in the Community, in order to avoid excessive costs to the taxpayer. Within that there are always structural adjustments in agriculture. That has been taking place over many years, and I believe that it will continue to do so.
    Mr. Jackson: With regard to the future course of cereal prices, it seems clear that the guarantee thresholds agreed this year will have been triggered by the output. The rumour is that it may require a reduction in target prices of about 5 per cent. at the next price fixing. Is it my hon. Friend's intention to insist that those guarantee thresholds are honoured in full?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have not yet seen the new Commission's proposals, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's view that cereals are best dealt with by a clear policy of long-term price restraint. Within that my hon. Friend is right to say that guarantee thresholds will bite next year, and we shall expect them to do so.
    Mr. Beggs: Is the Minister aware that grain prices continue to rise in that part of the United Kingdom that I represent? Does he also recognise that if it continues it will lead to a further decrease in the production of eggs and pig and poultrymeat and possibly to further job losses? Will the Minister consider again releasing some intervention grain to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have to follow Community rules on the release of intervention grain, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall consider it.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: The dairy industry is showing that it has the enterprise and will to cope with the quota system constructively. When we have achieved a better balance in the market, the industry will be on a more sound and stable basis for the future.
    Mr. Howells: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure British dairy farmers that he will abolish the basic co-responsibility levy in 1985. Can he give the House the
    488
    latest information about which countries in the Community are collecting the super levy, and what is the position in Britain?
    Mr. Jopling: I answered the hon. Gentleman's first question earlier. I hope that in 1985 we can get a cut in the levy in the context of a tough price policy.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked which countries were currently collecting the super levy. As far as I am aware, the only country which has collected it up to now—and no payments become due until 14 December—is West Germany. We shall be discussing these matters at the Agriculture Council in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great desire in the industry that the uncertainty over future quota levels should be resolved as soon as possible so that some stability can be returned to the industry?
    Mr. Jopling: I am aware that problems still exist because some producers do not know the final level of their quota. It is to quicken this process that we have agreed to treble the size of the tribunal from 30 to 90 members.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the effect that the outgoers scheme is having on the price of stock within the industry? As the Treasury appears to be in a concessionary mood this week, will he take steps to try to persuade it to relieve dairy farmers in the scheme of the capital gains tax imposition, which falls so heavily on the first payment?
    Mr. Jopling: I invite the hon. Gentleman to compare the price of dairy cows for the current period with that of a year ago. He will find that, whereas a few months back prices were running somewhat below last year's, the gap has closed considerably and the difference in price is now very small.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the unnecessary stresses within the industry is caused by the lack of flexibility between the wholesale quota and the direct sales quota? Can he sustain pressure on his colleagues within the Council of Ministers to achieve this very necessary flexibility?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is right to highlight this lack of flexibility as perhaps the greatest single difficulty in implementing the scheme. I have been drawing the attention of the Council of Ministers to the problem of inflexibility between direct and wholesale quotas ever since the summer. I shall raise the issue again when I go to the Council next week.
    Mr. John: Does the Minister accept that the fact that we are not likely to achieve the quota in the United Kingdom this year speaks volumes about the haste and the lack of forethought preceding the introduction of the milk quota scheme? Will he direct his mind to two further questions, one of which follows previous supplementary questions? When does he think that the uncertainties over quotas and appeals will be ended for the dairy industry? Secondly, as dairy workers are losing jobs because of their efficiency, and not inefficiency, should not the Government be turning their mind to proper redundancy terms so that these workers can be helped at a difficult time?
    Mr. Jopling: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new duties. I hope that he will enjoy his

    489
    wide-ranging and highly complicated brief. I am sure that we shall have a good many tough debates between ourselves.
    It is a fact that we have, so far, cut our milk production below the level of our quota for the period that we are discussing. I reject the suggestion that there was a lack of foresight. The answer lies in the considerable drought in the summer. Some of my colleagues in the Council of Ministers have approached me and expressed some envy in that they did not have the same drought, which reduced milk production.
    When do I expect all farmers to have received the final levels of their quota? I am not able to answer that question. The tribunal—as I have said, it has been enlarged—has a great many appeals and exceptional hardship cases before it. However, it is too early to estimate when farmers will know their quotas. We are moving as quickly as we can.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation payments for dairy workers who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs because of the reduced number of dairies. I draw his attention to answers that have been given on many occasions. These answers refer to the statutory scheme for redundancies and the special arrangements that are made by many of the dairies.

    Farm Wardens
    Mr. Conwayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hours of training his Department's farm wardens will require to enable them to carry out their responsibilities effectively.
    Mrs. Fenner: Farm wardens would be appointed from people with a good knowledge of farms and farmers in their area. Their job would be to provide a link between these farmers and the Department's wartime organisation. Their training would be simple and I am confident that appointment and training could be completed within a few days.
    Mr. Conway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. How many individuals are involved in the scheme and what will be the total time needed for implementation?
    Mrs. Fenner: We believe that we shall require about 6,000 farm wardens for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is about one warden for each 20 farms. We do not think that it will take long to get them together, and the areas are being delineated roughly on that basis.
    Mr. Corbett: What arrangements, if any, has the Minister made to ensure that the 6,000 wardens will be spared in the event of a nuclear attack? What plans does the Ministry have to update the ludicrous advice that it gave to farmers a few years ago to protect their dairy herds from the effects of a nuclear attack by spreading tarpaulins over the top of the lanes?
    Mrs. Fenner: The Government's duty is to make plans to defend the people. Of course we cannot guarantee that all will live. I am answering a specific question later about the hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question.

    Milk
    Mr. Marlowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the
    490
    source and level of the financial resources to he made available to meet the commitments arising from the delay in the collection of the milk levy.
    Mr. Jopling: Receipts from the milk supplementary levy are credited to the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. They represent, however, only a very small proportion of total expenditure. The decision to defer into 1985 half of the levy payment originally due this year will therefore only marginally reduce the funds available to offset guarantee expenditure in 1984, the net provision for which is fixed in the Community budget at 18,376 ecu. The actual level of expenditure requirements to the end of the year cannot, however, be predicted with any accuracy at this stage.
    Mr. Marlow: As Minister responsible for food and a jealous guardian of the public purse, is my right hon. Friend not concerned about the level of public financial resources expended on agriculture support at a time when other Government programmes are being severely cut?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend refers to delays in collection. The amount of levy postponed to 1985 represents only about one day's expenditure, and therefore the effect is not likely to be significant.
    Mr. Deakins: Does not the Council of Agriculture Ministers' approach to the milk levy illustrate once more its complete lack of financial responsibility when dealing with Community funds? Is that not one reason why the Council was not asked to approve the financial guidelines on budgetary discipline, which, presumably, it regards as not being worth the paper they are printed on?
    Mr. Jopling: I am sure that the recent agreement on budgetary discipline will be helpful in containing the burgeoning rate of agriculture expenditure, which has got us into so many difficulties related to surpluses and overspending in recent years.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Was not the Minister's gesture of refusing to pay the milk levy rather futile, since Great Britain is likely to fall 400 million litres short of the present year's quota? Do we not need an urgent review of this shambles to ensure that the British dairy industry meets it production quota?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that Northern Ireland dairy farmers exceeded their quota for the first six-month period. The hon. Gentleman referred to Great Britain, but he should remember that it looks as though we are due for payment of some levy in Northern Ireland for the first six months. I have said time and time again in the Council that it would be intolerable if farmers in one part of the Community were asked to pay the levy while those in other parts of the Community were making no effort to stick to the rules.
    Mr. Nicholson: During the Minister's recent and welcome visit to Northern Ireland, did he develop any greater understanding of the problems facing Northern Ireland dairy farmers? Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that Northern Ireland dairy farmers did not receive the 65,000 tonnes and that that is causing great hardship to the Northern Ireland dairy industry?
    Mr. Jopling: I enormously enjoyed my visit to Northern Ireland. I was glad to have the opportunity to

    491
    clear up misapprehensions that Northern Ireland had not had the benefit of the 65,000 tonnes which I was able to negotiate on its behalf.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, instead of clearing it up, he enlarged the problem facing the dairy industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman now understand, after his visit, that it is the Northern Ireland dairy farmers who, alone in the United Kingdom, will have to pay this iniquitous levy? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee to those dairy farmers that the statement made by the Prime Minister from the Dispatch Box will be adhered to and that no money will be collected until every Community partner collects the same money from its dairy farmers?
    Mr. Jopling: My great disappointment when I visited Northern Ireland was that the hon. Gentleman was not able to meet me to discuss these matters. With regard to the words used on 20 November by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the payment of levies, all I can say is that I could not have said it better myself.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear points of order after questions.
    Later—
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was answering today he implied in his reply to me that I deliberately did not meet him when he was in Northern Ireland. Is it right for the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House? When he invited representatives of farming communities to meet him at a dinner—in Stormont I think it was—he deliberately left out the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) and myself. If he wants to meet us, why did he do that?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am responsible for what goes on in the Chamber. I cannot be responsible for who is invited to dinner parties.
    Mr. Andy Stewartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has discussed with the European Commission the possibility of leasing milk quota.
    Mr. Jopling: Leasing quota separately from the land is one of several possible methods of improving the quota system that I wish to discuss thoroughly with the industry and the professional bodies in the United Kingdom before approaching the European Commission.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the urgency of this matter, we should decide, before it is too late, that this country should not go it alone?
    Mr. Jopling: The truth is that it is perfectly clear that leasing a quota would, if permitted under the regulations, allow a producer with a temporary excess quota to let his quota to another producer for a fixed term, at the end of which the quota would return to the original holder. There is an advantage in that approach, because it would make the quota system more flexible and would help to ensure that the available quota was fully utilised. At the moment that is against the rules, and there is no way that we can operate against the rules.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Minister will know that there is widespread concern and anger in farming circles about the apparently unjust discrepancies between the decisions taken by the various panels. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to assist farmers to assess the nature of this problem by publishing the amounts of secondary quota allocated by each of the various local panels?
    Mr. Jopling: We set up the tribunal because we foresaw that there might be some discrepancies between the panels. In the event of dissatisfaction, appeals can be made for a second look at those decisions by the tribunal.

    Grain (Intervention Storage)
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total tonnage of United Kingdom grain that has gone into intervention storage in the current year.
    Mr. MacGregor: A total of 2·16 million tonnes of grain have been delivered into United Kingdom intervention stores in the current marketing year to 1 December.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is it true that, if the Government want to send grain to Ethiopia, it is cheaper for them to buy it on the open market than to take it from our intervention stores and from our farmers who have been paid for the grain? Many of my constituents, especially those who contributed to the Ethiopian famine appeal, find that absurd and offensive. Will the hon. Gentleman talk to his European colleagues with a view to reforming the system?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are two main points to be made. We are sending—and have been doing so all through the year—considerable quantities of cereals out of intervention stores to Africa to deal with famine. My hon. Friend will know that at the European summit earlier this week a commitment was made to send 1·2 million tonnes next year. While we have those stores in intervention it is right to use some of it for that purpose, but it is a good deal more expensive to give it as food aid than to keep it in intervention stores. That point has also to be taken into account.
    In our overall aid programme we concentrate a considerable amount of the food aid on developing agriculture and on making use of agricultural stocks that are available and cheaper elsewhere in the world. The problem with regard to Community stocks is that, with high support prices for cereals, they are expensive to dispose of.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.
    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.
    Mr. Duffy: As the Prime Minister ponders the implications of yesterday's shabby U-turn in favour of the

    493
    better-off, has it not occurred to her that any future indication by her of the Tory spirit of one nation must serve only to highlight her own entrenched position on unemployment? "There is no alternative", as she puts it. [Interruption.] Does she not see that the danger ahead, as her rebellious Back Benchers become increasingly rattled, is that having turned her Secretary of State for Education and Science and her Chancellor of the Exchequer this week, they may ponder whether the lady herself may be for turning?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly worked very hard at that question, although I think he lost his way a good deal long before he came to a conclusion. I thought that yesterday's statement was received rather well. [Interruption.] I think it was well received rather widely. There is an increase in the science budget, and it is far above what it was in 1978–79.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what has just been said, and contrary to what was said in the press this morning, the decision yesterday on student grants enhanced the reputation of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science? [Interruption.] It enhanced the reputation of this House. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with some of her other right hon. Friends and ask them to be equally forthcoming and flexible on other things in the coming year?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. With regard to the second part, no, I shall not urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow more public expenditure. I remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends that there is a great need to lift taxation at the threshold to help those who are on comparatively low wages, and to increase the gap between those on social security and those on earnings.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not the fact that, in the course of making a desirable concession yesterday, the Government robbed science in order to save their own skin, regardless of the damage thereby inflicted on British engineering, medicine, industry and technology? The Secretary of State for Education and Science said last week that
    "the desparate plight of the scientists could not wait longer."
    How is it that they can wait longer this week?
    The Prime Minister: The science budget for the coming year is greater than the science budget for this year. Under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the science budget for 1984–85 is £530 million, compared with £274 million in the last year of the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman must have been very angry with his colleagues on that occasion.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady is misleading the House and the country. She should know that if one compares like with like the annual rate of growth in investment in science under the Labour Government was four times as high as it has been under the Tories. Does she admit that for four years the Government have been cutting research expenditure? Is she aware that only last week the Advisory Board for the Research Councils reported that worse was to come because the decrease in investment in science would continue as a result of Government policies? When will the right hon. Lady give up her obsession with cuts, and wasting national assets, and act in the national interest?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about an obsession with cuts, but the biggest cuts in public expenditure in the past 10 years were made by the Labour Government between 1976 and 1977. Those cuts were bigger than anything ever known. Taking everything at 1982–83 prices, the Labour Government cut public expenditure by £9 billion in one year. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that his party cut public expenditure by a far greater amount than ever before.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—
    The Prime Minister: One moment—I have not yet answered the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. He is too anxious. After that £9 billion cut, the best that the Labour Government could do for the science budget in 1978 was £274 million. It has now gone up, by far more than inflation, to £530 million. The right hon. Gentleman should be congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Kinnock: I should very much like to be able to do that, but I should have to congratulate him, again, on misleading the House. Does the Prime Minister admit that, whereas in 1979, under the Labour Government, all the alpha projects were paid for, only half of them are paid for now? If she is so proud of the Government's record, will she undertake that there will be no further cuts in the research budget in the future?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is no person to say that there should never be Government cuts, when his party holds the record for cuts in public spending. They were very hard cuts—cuts in the real value of the Health Service, and real cuts in aid. My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has done excellent things for science, as I have shown. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is true, perhaps I may point out to him that there are far more alpha projects now as a result of what the Government have done for science.
    Mr. Hordern: I applaud the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science yesterday, but would it not be a good idea to undertake a long-term review of public expenditure as a whole, across Departments, and to bring that forward along with a review of revenue at the beginning of the year so that the fullest consultation with the House can take place? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far, the autumn reviews of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have been far too much like Russian roulette, with the pistol pointing at our feet, and that it is time the system was changed?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, there are always difficult choices to be made in public expenditure, but it cannot simply go on and on rising. We saw the effect of that in the mid-1970s, when we finished up at the IMF, with the biggest single public expenditure cut ever known, and the biggest borrowing, which we are still repaying. We have to take steps to contain public expenditure, and all other Governments have to do the same. There are difficult choices to be made. Naturally, I am anxious to let my right hon. and hon. Friends have as much information as possible. We can learn a great deal by looking back, but there is no way of getting out of difficult choices. If we are to help people on low wages to have bigger net take-home pay, we have to find a way to cut taxation.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fisher: Has the Prime Minister read the article in January's edition of Accountancy about the National Coal Board's accounts? It is written by five independent academics, who conclude that the NCB's accounts do not, in their view, form
    "an adequate basis for informed management decisions".
    Is she aware of their view that the "Accounting Statement for Pits", known as F23, is a totally flawed instrument with which to make pit closures because of its policy towards depreciation, stocks and surface damage? Will she tell the House whether F23 is the accounting basis for pit closures? If it is not, what is the accounting basis? Will she make a full and detailed statement to the House on this issue, which is central to the entire dispute?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman regards the matter of coal merely as one of accounting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and thinks that it can all be done with mirrors, he will be happy if we eliminate the £1·3 billion a year subsidy to the National Coal Board. That is not a matter of accounting, but a matter of fact —[Interruption.] It is plain that that is a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am talking about the £1·3 billion of taxpayers' money. Regarding the accounts at Cortonwood [Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The behaviour of the House is most unseemly. The hon. Member asked a detailed question and the Prime Minister is replying to it.
    The Prime Minister: The National Coal Board believes that the calculations of the academic accountants are misleading, especially because their calculations were based on 1981–82 results, when Cortonwood lost £6·2 a tonne. In 1983–84 it lost £32 a tonne. If it is only a matter of accounting, we could cut the £1·3 billion subsidy and be much better off.
    Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire county council is planning to spend £1·3 million on a party political propaganda campaign? Is she further aware that the Scargillite leader of the council describes such spending as a mere pinprick? Is this not typical of the sheer contempt with which Socialists treat public money?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend says, there is no such thing as public money. Money comes from taxpayers and ratepayers, and it could be spent on their own families if it were not taken for other purposes.
    Dr. Owen: As someone who was for four years Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is a scientist and an honorary fellow of the Royal Society, does
    496
    the Prime Minister not feel that it was niggardly to withdraw the money that science desperately needs, and merely spoil the statement yesterday and the ship for a ha'porth of tar?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Governments must make difficult choices. He is in the comfortable position of being in opposition, when he refuses to make those choices. He had to make them in government. Indeed, he was a member of the Government who made the £9 billion cuts in one year after years of profligacy.
    Ms. Clare Shortasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that a vast and growing number of people are deeply worried at the division, bitterness and economic decline that her Government have brought to the country? Before irreparable harm is done, will she make some concessions so that we can settle the coal strike, and will she shift her economic policy so that we can begin to deal with unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The National Coal Board has negotiated and made concessions. None have been forthcoming on the other side. The National Coal Board can move no further.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Wood: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Conservative Benches welcome the flexibility demonstrated by the Government yesterday. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that a stable economy is the best way in which industry and technology in industry can be developed over the coming years?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest that we should do everything that we can to assist enterprise and those who work in industry. That includes raising taxation thresholds so that there is an increasing gap between low incomes and social security benefits.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have had any request from the Prime Minister to answer substantive question No. 4.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, we did not reach Question No. 4 largely because the supplementary questions today were of such great length.

Points of Order
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised a matter with you about tabling a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the money that will be coined by the Government from the sale of the record produced by Band Aid to assist the Ethiopian victims. You will recall that I pointed out that the Government should ensure that every single penny of value added tax raised on that record should go to Ethiopia. I submitted a question to the Table Office in accordance with your instructions yesterday. I have not yet seen it tabled. I am told that it has gone to you so that you can adjudicate upon the matter. It is important, when young people get together, free of charge, to provide a record and money, that the Government should ensure that they do not make a profit out of it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to put a supplementary to a question that I have not yet seen. I was pleased to hear the record played to me just before lunch.
Sir John Wells: Agricultural questions, both today and generally, run for some 40 minutes. One third of the food that you, Mr. Speaker, eat and that we all eat, is of horticultural origin. The only question today that had horticultural implications was question No. 5. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Mrs. Fenner) replied at very great length. I know also that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) read his question at very great length. Despite these two long interventions, is it not unfortunate that you did not see fit to call some hon. Members to raise horticultural questions?
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member looks at the Order Paper he will see that nearly all the questions up to question No. 18 came from his side of the House. I have an obligation to balance the interests of both sides of the House. I am very sorry that I was unable to call the hon. Member on that particular question.

Business of the House
3.36 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House 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 10 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
Motion on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order.
TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER — A debate on European Community documents on the draft general budget for 1985, when the White Paper on developments in the European Community January to June, 1984, Cmnd. 9348, will be relevant.
The document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Motions on the International Development Association (Seventh Replenishment) Order and on the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1984 Selective Capital Increase) Order.
WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER AND THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER — Progress in Committee on the Local Government Bill.
FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 17 DECEMBER—Until Seven o'clock, Private Members' Motions.
Afterwards, motions on the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conference) Orders.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order.
The House will wish to know that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 21 December, until Wednesday 9 January 1985.
The following documents are relevant to the debate on 11 December:

1984 Supplementary Budget

(a) 8322/84

Preliminary Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 for 1984

(b) 8879/84

Letter of Amendment to the Preliminary Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 for 1984

(c) (Unnumbered)

Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 for 1984

(d) 10222/84

Amendments and Modifications by the European Parliament to the Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 for 1984

1985 Draft Budget

(e) (Unnumbered)

Draft General Budget of the European Communities for 1985

(f) 9482/84

Letter of Amendment to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1985

(g) 10690/84

Amendments and proposed Modifications to Draft General Budget for 1985

Own Resources

(h) 8454/84

Amended proposal for a Council Decision on the Community's system of own resources

(i) 8445/84

Draft Regulation introducing reserve measures to cover requirements in 1985

(j) 8514/84

Commission Communication concerning budgetary requirements of the Community in 1984 and 1985

Financial Regulation

(k) 5899/84

Amended proposal for a Council Regulation amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities

Budgetary Discipline

(l) (Unnumbered)

Budgetary Discipline: common position of the Council of Ministers

Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 78-xxxiii (1983–84 paragraph 5.

(b) HC 78-xxxv (1983–84) paragraph 3.

(c) HC 78-xxxv (1983–84) paragraph 3.

(d) HC 5-i (1984–85) paragraph 5.

(e) HC 78-xxxv (1983–84) paragraph 2.

(f) HC 78-xxxv (1983–84) paragraph 2.

(g) HC 5-iii (1984–85) paragraph 3.

(h) HC 78-xxxiv (1983–84) paragraph 1.

(i) HC 78-xxxiv (1983–84) paragraph 1.

(j) HC 78-xxxiv (1983–84) paragraph 1.

(k) HC 78-xxxiii (1983–84) paragraph 3 and HC 32-xviii (1980–81) paragraph 3.

(l) HC 5-ii (1984–85) paragraph 4.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I hope there will not be a rebellion because we are to have only a couple of weeks off for Christmas. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, following the usual precedent on constitutional matters, the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House? We shall want a statement next Monday on the report of the European Community Environment Council. Following that, may we have an undertaking that in Government time there can be a debate in this House on acid rain? In view of the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the recent enlightening debate in another place on the research councils, debate in the near future in Government time on science and science policy?
Finally, the Government's plans to hold a debate late next Monday night on the order to abolish elections for the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council is

501
thoroughly shamefaced and shameful. Because it is such an important—indeed, unprecedented—matter, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter away, think about it and allow us to have that debate in prime time, when the full attention of the nation can be focused on this place.
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I could deal with those points in the order in which they were raised. I understand that the usual channels are at the moment reviewing what aspects of the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill would be suitable for the Floor of the House. I recognise the constitutional import of what the right hon. Gentleman says. I shall ensure that a statement is made on the report of the European Community Environmental Council.
As for acid rain, the Government have now made known their views on the report of the relevant departmental Select Committee. I agree that a debate should take place in the reasonably near future.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's request that there should be a debate on science policy in Government time. I cannot be forthcoming on that matter today, but I note the request.
I reject the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word "shamefaced" in relation to the amount of time being allocated for the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order. He will appreciate that, as the result of a decision taken last night, the debate will last for three hours and I cannot offer any prospect—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is the middle of the night.
Mr. Biffen: It is not. It is absurd to say that once we stray past 10 o'clock, we are in the middle of the night.
I have no wish to hold out false hopes to the right hon. Gentleman on this matter, but clearly it is an issue which could be pursued through the usual channels.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In view of the effect that a move towards the taxation of lump sums under occupational pension schemes or towards discontinuing tax relief on pension contributions would have on the budgets of millions of people, will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if, happily, he has decided against such a move, it might relieve a great deal of anxiety if he could be persuaded to make a statement to that effect in advance of the Budget?
Mr. Biffen: It would be thoroughly undesirable if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were bounced on decision after decision to deny representations of lobbyists. My hon. Friend makes a fair point in representation to the Chancellor. It is best proceeded with through the normal delicacies that occur in representation to the Treasury at this time of the year.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the division of a Bill in Committee between the House and Standing Committee, though we have become accustomed to it in recent years in connection with the Finance Bill, is inherently undesirable and results in a less satisfactory consideration of the Bill and a net increase in the time spent on Bills?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, but I have to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that is what happened to the London Government Bill of 1963, to which he lent his hand.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is useful for the time of the House to be directed to subjects of national importance? In view of that, would not the unnecessary prolonging of the coal strike by Scargill's stormtroopers, who are destroying jobs inside and outside mining communities, be a highly appropriate subject for debate?
Mr. Biffen: There is no provision for a debate next week and I must confess that I cannot hold out to my hon. Friend the prospect of an early debate. Doubtless he can use the other opportunities that exist for him.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The grapevine has it that the inspector's report on the Stansted inquiry will be published on Monday. Will there be a statement about the report on that date, and when can we expect a debate? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen my early-day motion 146, which is supported by 225 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House, deeply concerned to achieve balanced economic growth throughout the United Kingdom, and believing that the proposed massive expansion of Stansted Airport would produce unjustifiable urban growth and congestion in North West Essex and East Hertfordshire, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to opt now for a policy which, while providing for a modest increase in activity at Stansted, subject to a fixed ceiling, would place the greater emphasis on taking all possible steps to expand the use of provincial airports to meet demands in the region of its origin, the case for which has been well documented and shown to be financially viable by various groups, notably the North of England Regional Consortium .]
Mr. Biffen: I have no knowledge of when the Stansted report is likely to be received, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Government have already said that there will be a debate on the report before any Government decision is taken.
Sir Ian Percival: I recognise and greatly appreciate the importance that the Government attach to the views of Back Benchers, as was so recently demonstrated by their ready response to an early-day motion signed by a mere 154 hon. Members. May I hope for an equally sympathetic response to my early-day motion 37 on the Brighton outrage, terrorism and capital punishment, which has been signed by 180 hon. Members?
[That this House extends its deepest sympathy to the relatives of those killed in the Brighton bombing on 12 October and to those injured; deplores the indescribably evil and cowardly actions of those who perpetrated this outrage; re-affirms its total resolve that the freedoms of which it is the guardian must never be lost or lessened by violence or the fear of it; thanks the Prime Minister, for having so stated so clearly and firmly on behalf of the nation; and is of the opinion that death should be the penalty for acts of terrorism causing death.]
May I remind my right hon. Friend that millions of people regard it as outrageous that anyone should try to kill our Prime Minister and Cabinet—and come so close to succeeding—and, in the process, kill and maim so many; that a debate will not cost the Government a single penny, a fact which, I hope will also appeal to my right

503
hon. Friends; and that a debate would give great satisfaction to many supporters of the Government inside and outside the House and to millions of others.
Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once that my right hon. and learned Friend speaks for many in their deep anxiety on this topic. Of course, I shall give serious consideration to the point that he has just made, but I hope that he will match that with a sympathy for the difficulties that I have on the amount of business that lies ahead.
Mr. Don Dixon: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the important statement that was made last week on the £200 million cut in regional aid, bearing in mind that regions such as the northern region have lost 100,000 jobs since the Government came into power in 1979, and that, as a result of that statement, it will lose £180 million in grants over the next 10 years?
In addition, since that statement was made, it has been announced that 2,100 jobs at British Shipbuilders will be lost, 246 jobs at Jarrow steelworks and 360 jobs at Cape Insulation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). Bearing in mind the number of hon. Members who tried to ask questions on that statement, is it not important that we should have an early debate?
Mr. Biffen: I accept at once that there is a desire on both sides of the House for an early debate on regional policy, and I hope to secure that.
Mr. Michael Latham: What proposals does my right hon. Friend have to allow the House to join in the consultation process which is now going on, on the Secretary of State for Social Services' document on generic prescribing? Some of us have views which we need to express.
Mr. Biffen: I trust that my hon. Friend, who is a most articulate expresser of views, will already have taken the obvious ways of representing those views to my right hon. Friend. I am sure thaat he will recognise that the debate on that topic recently was a good way of enabling the House to make known its general feelings.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: May I press the Leader of the House further on the Representation of the People Bill that is to be debated on Monday? Would it not be provocative and counterproductive to try to separate the Bill into parts and to take some on the Floor of the House and some in Committee? Therefore, will he take the Committee stage of that constitutional Bill entirely on the Floor of the House?
In view of the procedural mess that the Government got into yesterday over Scotland and Scottish affairs, might it not be an idea to have a debate on devolution shortly which might find widespread support on both sides of the House, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, from you as well?
Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman had been here longer and was not so self-evidently a novice, he would realise that yesterday was in no way a procedural mess—just the natural virility of Scots Labour Members of Parliament.
May I use the first and more substantial part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to return to the point that was made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I did not wish to be dismissive when I referred to the
504
experiences of the London Government Bill. I accept the force of the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). Discussions are currently taking place through the usual channels, and we shall have to see what is concluded.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there will be an opportunity during consideration of the Local Government Bill next week to make a decision about a Grand Committee for London? After all, although Scotland and Wales do not have assemblies to speak for the whole country—nor do we want .one for London—they both have Grand Committees.
Mr. Biffen: The opportunities for a decision effectively rest with the Committee of Selection, and I must leave it there.
Mr. Frank Field: Given the Government's new-found enthusiasm for listening to the views of Back Benchers, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 59 on hard drug abuse?
[That this House, in drawing attention to the dramatic rise in the number of drug addicts over the last couple of years, calls upon the Government to: (i) develop an effective policy aimed at breaking the hard drug supply routes to the United Kingdom which will include a large increase in the number of customs officials with special responsibility for the task, (ii) increase substantially the amount of money which is available to local health authorities to develop adequate treatment and prevention services (iii) impose the maximum sentences on convicted major drug dealers and (iv) implement the outstanding recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, particularly those on education in the community, so that the maximum number of young people are aware of the dangers of using hard drugs.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office and come back to the House with proposals for debate before we rise for Christmas?
Mr. Biffen: On the point about the enthusiasm for listening to the views of Back Benchers, may I say that that is overwhelmingly influenced and determined by the inherent merit of the representations. I shall refer the early-day motion to my right hon. Friend so that he may be appraised of the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous concern among all law-abiding people in the country—especially those belonging to students' unions—about the illegal donation by the polytechnic of North London from public funds of £1,000 to striking miners? The National Union of Students has said that that action is in breach of Government guidelines on the matter issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Attorney-General to come to the House and make a statement on the matter with a view to a proper prosecution of the polytechnic?
Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, the matter is now before my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and I think that for the moment it might be appropriate to leave it there.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Leader of the House give priority to his undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition that he will consider early debate on science and science policy? Is he aware of the concern of the scientific community and of many hon. Members on both sides of the House about just what the Government are up to with regard to the science budget?
Mr. Biffen: My response to the Leader of the Opposition had all the courtesy and inherent respect which I bear towards the right hon. Gentleman, but it was, even so, somewhat tepid. However, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is an important debate to follow business questions, and another statement. I fully appreciate that this is prime Back Bench time, and I propose to allow business questions to continue for another 10 minutes, during which time I hope that I shall be able to fit everybody in.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend implied a few moments ago that 10 o'clock does not in his view fall in the middle of the night. I should like to advise my right hon. Friend that Wednesday 9 January falls in the middle of my recess. Will my right hon. Friend take that as a warning?
I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend about a matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members, relating to the Representation of the People Bill. Can he so organise proceedings on the Bill that important matters will be taken on the Floor of the House before it proceeds to a Standing Committee, so that those of us who strongly object to the raising of the deposit to £1,000 may register our disapproval on the Floor of the House, where it should be registered?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is reputed for the ruthless inner logic that he brings to politics. That being so, it is just possible that he may decide that coming back a touch early in January will enable those matters to be taken on the Floor of the House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the Government are deliberately dodging a full discussion of the document produced by the five academic accontants on the subject of the National Coal Board's accounting procedures? Why does not the Leader of the House put it to the Prime Minister that Parliament would be satisfied if there were a full debate on the matter? Many hon. Members believe that, if that debate took place, some compromise positon might be found to help the National Union of Mineworkers and the NCB to reach an earlier settlement? Is it not the duty of the Prime Minister to find an early settlement, even if doing so necessitates using that document?
Mr. Biffen: I think that the five academic accountants are to be elevated to the status of the Tolpuddle martyrs in the mythology of some Opposition Members. I can say only that no provision has been made for a parliamentary debate on the matter next week. [HON MEMBERS: "Why not"] Why not? Because we have before us a substantial agenda of issues on which discussion is desired by both sides of the House, and the settlement of the miners' dispute could easily proceed the moment that Mr. Scargill and his advisers took the NACODS settlement as the basis for further talks.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend did not mention the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Undertaking on Supplementary Finance for the Community) Order among the orders for debate on Tuesday. Can we assume that there is no question of the House being asked to approve the order next week?
Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend knows, the matter is still being considered in the courts and it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome. However, in a sense of realism, he can assume that it will not feature in our business on Tuesday.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during an all-party 'visit to Greenham Common yesterday, the American colonel in charge of the base described what would take place in the event of a nuclear war? He said that the command to launch the missiles would come from General Bernard Rogers to two American personnel in the Greenham Common base, that they would go to a safe, open it, see whether the envelope inside matched the code given to them by General Rogers and then launch the missiles. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House ought to have an early debate on who controls the firing of cruise missiles?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Lady's graphic description. Perhaps we might leave the matter there for the moment.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampthon, North): As my right hon. Friend said, there is an important debate on European affairs on Tuesday next week. My right hon. Friend is a keen student of European affairs. How is it that the financial mechanism will be binding on the Council of Ministers when account can be taken of exceptional circumstances? As we are to debate the issue next week, it would be useful if we knew now what the Government's views on this subject are.
Mr. Biffen: My part in this drama is to provide the time—my hon. Friend will provide the answers.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Although I appreciate that the Leader of the House is not responsible for the complex numbering or titling of European documents or for the number of minor amendments that need to be taken, does he agree that the major topics should be announced during business questions? In that regard, can he tell us whether the disciplinary document, to which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has just referred, will be debated on Tuesday and, if so, whether it will be part of the substantive motion?
Mr. Biffen: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about how we present to the House the form in which we expect debates to proceed. I shall see whether some improvement can be made. As to his specific point about the disciplinary document, my understanding is that the answer is yes.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there has recently been considerable abuse by local authorities of legislation which is designed to help people who, through no fault of their own, fall on hard times? Will my right hon. Friend find time soon to introduce legislation to end such abuses, which are for blatantly political purposes?
Mr. Biffen: I must confess that the legislative programme is already so heavily committed that I should mislead my hon. Friend if I held out any prospect of such legislation being prepared and embarked upon. However, I understand my hon. Friend's deep anxiety and the justification for it.
Mr. John Maxton: As the Secretary of State for Scotland failed again yesterday to make a statement on an extremely important matter, which happens far too often, and despite the fact that the Leader of the House showed his prejudice against the Scots having a fair deal in the House, will he call a meeting of the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the leaders of other parties in Scotland to see whether we can find better arrangements for dealing with Scottish business in the House?
Mr. Biffen: I have an instinctive affection for the Scots. It is a most romantic affection, so I should like to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of any anxieties that he might have about my hostility. However, my affection for the Scots is matched by a corresponding affection for the usual channels and what the hon. Gentleman suggests would, I think, be best pursued through them.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: In regard to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), will he notice that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is coming before the House shortly? If the Government have the will, they can introduce legislation to prevent the abuse of ratepayers' money being used for blatantly political purposes in Scotland.
Mr. Biffen: When the Bill goes through the House, my hon. and learned Friend may be able to secure an amendment, using his admirable skills to the end that he seeks.
Mr. Max Madden: Although the Prime Minister thinks that the report by the five academic accountants is unimportant, does not the Leader of the House share the general view that, as the National Coal Board fought to repress this report, it clearly regards it as important? As defects in NCB accounting methods have a direct effect on Government policy, not least in the setting of financial targets for the National Coal Board, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House soon so that all hon. Members have an opportunity to put questions on this most important matter?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Gentleman's point. It is just conceivable that this document, which is about to become part of the New Testament, is not as compelling in its reasoning as has been suggested. Those who are concerned to bring about an early termination of the coal dispute—[Interruption.] When hon. Members have stopped trying to shout down—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Biffen: Those who are concerned that there should be an early conclusion to the coal dispute have to persuade Mr. Scargill to take the NACODS settlement as the basis of further talks.

Student Awards (Scotland)
4 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): With permission, I shall make a statement about the consequences in Scotland of the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science yesterday on students' awards. As my right hon. Friend said, the minimum grant will be discontinued and the contribution to students' maintenance from better-off parents will be increased in 1985–86. This will not, however, extend to tuition fees, as originally proposed.
The changes now proposed will involve additional expenditure on students' awards in Scotland of about £5 million in 1985–86. Just over £2 million of this additional expenditure will be met by an addition to the Scottish block following from the changes by my right hon. Friend in his Department's budget and the operation of the formula adjustment to the Scottish block. The remainder will be found from within the block.
Once final decisions have been taken, I shall announce the full details of my public expenditure programmes for 1985–86 to the House. I expect to do this in the course of the next week. Subject to further scrutiny of priorities within my overall programme, it still remains my intention that additional resources will be made available to the Scottish central institutions to increase the output of engineering and technology graduates. Meantime, I am not in a position to give firm figures.
As regards the proposed review of the students' awards system, I can assure the House that it will take full account of the Scottish higher education system, and that my Department will be closely involved.
Mr. Donald Dewar: We are pleased that a statement has been made today. The Secretary of State is the Minister responsible for funding student grants in Scotland and it is essential that he is accountable to the House for his decisions. The Secretary of State for Education and Science cannot answer for Scotland, and did not pretend yesterday that he could. This is an unsatisfactory and undignified situation, and it is fortunate that the statement has been made, as it does something to remedy the damage.
On the substance of the matter, what was the Scottish component of the £39 million that was to be clawed off student grants by the original package? Although the retreat sounded yesterday on tuition fees may mean that the Government have to forgo £5 million of the planned cuts, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the inadequate and mean-minded 3 per cent. uprating, well below the inflation rate, the harsher parental payments demanded and the abolition of the minimum grant leaves the package as a severe blow to Scottish students and their living standards?
We understand that, of the £5 million involved in this messy compromise, almost £3 million will be recouped from the Scottish Office budget, but we also understand that it will not necessarily be from the Scottish Education Department. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is finding £11 million next year, at the expense of the university programme. Some £6 million is to come from the equipment grant in 1985–86. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland give a firm guarantee that none of this

509
will be found at the expense of the Scottish universities, and that the other £5 million of the £11 million total sum that makes up the English package will not come from Scotland either? If it did, there would be a real danger of double jeopardy; the Scots would be paying twice.
We are very worried that Scotland has come badly out of the mathematics of this compromise. England is finding £11 million out of the total of £21 million in cuts, with the Treasury making up the balance. In Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman has to find from his budget almost £3 million out of a total of £5 million. That is a clear and obvious discrepancy, and we should like an explanation of how it has risen and why.
I come now to the decision-making process that lies behind the budget compromise. If the right hon. Gentleman was a party to the original decision on the cuts, and the subsequent disorderly and disorganised retreat, his judgment has been discredited, and he has been humiliated just as certainly as his colleagues south of the border. If he was not a party to the decision, but meekly accepted for Scottish students damaging decisions taken elsewhere, his humiliation is even more complete and contemptible.
It is widely reported that the decision taken yesterday was the result of a meeting between the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The dramatis personae at this panic-stricken gathering included the acting Chief Whip, Viscount Whitelaw and even a junior Minister from the Department of Education and Science. It was the crunch meeting, which decided on the desperate attempt to save face and placate outraged public opinion, and which resulted in yesterday's statement. Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically reassure the House that he was at that meeting? If he was not, who spoke for Scotland?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful for the initial welcome to the statement. It is always a problem when any decision is taken that affects several parts of the United Kingdom whether, for the convenience of the House, one, two, three or sometimes four statements should be made. I accept that, but I am glad that we have had a statement today. The savings expected from the original package were between £8 million and £9 million in Scotland, and we expect them now to be more like £3 million to £4 million. The university programme will be treated exactly the same north and south of the border and it is my right hon. Friend's decision as to how much he gives to the University Grants Committee to do what it is asked to do. It is for the UGC to decide, as it does with every other part of university expenditure, what is to be the spread between various universities. Until we see what that spread is, we do not know whether there will be more or less in Scotland.
As to the comparisons, they are absolutely on all fours between the two countries, because Scotland is treated under the same formula and gets exactly the same treatment on this part of the programme as it does with any other. There is no difference.
As to the discrepancy between the amounts available to Scotland and the amounts in the United Kingdom, hon. Gentlemen are puzzled when they first see this, because the university system, the number of years of the course and so on are quite different north and south of the border. There is therefore a larger component for Scotland because there are four-year courses instead of three-year courses. That is logical and simple.
510
I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the meeting to which he referred. This was a collective decision, taken in a series of consultations, with which I was fully involved.
Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for his statement. Is he aware that many parents will be grateful for the new decision to which he has come? Will he give the most detailed consideration, particularly in Scotland, to the problems of the four-year course?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I shall give that careful consideration.
Mr. Bruce Milian: As the £21 million that was originally announced yesterday was specifically stated to be in respect of only England and Wales, why does part of the cost come from the budget of Scottish universities?
Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figure for England and Wales is applied, as per the formula, to the Scottish block. Therefore, that has the appropriate Scottish effect. As to the general amounts given to the UGC, it is and always has been for it to decide which university it can benefit.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Has my right hon. Friend observed that, although his statement, like that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science yesterday, has been sourly received by Liberal and Labour Members, it has been warmly welcomed by my hon. Friends? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, even on the original proposals, parents with a residual income of £13,000 will be paying less next year than this year, and that will continue to be so after the statement? Can my right hon. Friend also say what is the level of actual income which gives rise to a residual income of that type?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend make it easier for parents to be aware of the opportunities for reducing the cost of their parental contributions through the use of covenants?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the announcement yesterday. The effect on any individual parent or student very much depends on income, the number of children in the family, and so on. For most Scottish families with one child living away from home, the largest increase is unlikely to exceed £270.
My hon. Friend asks about contributions and grants generally. I agree with him that the longer Scottish courses are a relevant factor.
As for the level of residual income, broadly speaking students whose parents' residual income is below £13,000 will be either neutrally affected or slightly better off in some cases. Those above that will be worse off. Fewer than half the total number of Scottish students will be affected at all by these changes.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I thank the Secretary of State for belatedly making the statement that in all decency he should have made yesterday. Does he accept that, of the four concessions which the National Union of Students and other students sought, the one that was chosen is more beneficial to the very high income families than to the lower and middle income families, who will be very badly affected? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, likewise, that Opposition Members are

511
not blinded by his casuistical explanation of why the Scottish universities should be penalised twice over—once by being part of the Department of Education and Science budget and again by the changes that the right hon. Gentleman will be making in the rest of the education system?
Mr. Younger: Dealing first with the hon. Gentleman's second question, he will appreciate that there are two separate components in this type of expenditure. There is that which is made in the Scottish block and in England and Wales in ordinary English Department of Education and Science programmes. Then there is that which, both north and south of the border, applies to universities. They are separate programmes. The university responsibility is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the money given to the universities is always given to and distributed by the University Grants Committee. Therefore there is complete fairness between England and Scotland both in the way that the non-university programmes are spread according to the formula and in the way that the university programmes are spread in the way that they always are spread.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other question, I was glad to be able to make a statement today, but he will appreciate that it is difficult to have several statements on one subject on the same day.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend take the fullest part in the review announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and in doing so will my right hon. Friend remind the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that one of the grandest principles of education in Scotland is that those who did not benefit themselves from higher education enable their children to do so? They are not well off, as the Secretary of State for Education and Science describes them. They may be ordinary people, the mother a nurse and the father an electrician. They are making it possible for their children to do what they were unable themselves to do. If funds are to be found, they can be found easily by abolishing the absurdity, with respect to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), of the huge course for doctors of philosophy, which provides nothing to human education.
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I can assure him that I shall be fully involved in the review of the student grants system which is about to take place.
As for the assertion that some of the parents affected are well off, I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's remark. It is a matter of judgment what is the precise level at which an income becomes that of someone who is well off. However, ny hon. and learned Friend may appreciate that this change takes out the principle, which many people both inside and outside the House found objectionable, of bringing in fees to the parental contribution. That will benefit people whether they are classed as having high incomes or otherwise.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Dr. Godman.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I never expected to be named in these exchanges. I am far too modest to recommend any hon. Member to read my thesis. I think that it is a first-class piece of work, but that is to be expected.
Moving to more important matters than my thesis or the absurd comment of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), may I ask the Secretary of State whether the position of students in Scotland and of the university sector itself would not be strengthened by a Scottish UGC or at the very least a Scottish subcommittee of the UGC?
Mr. Younger: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's view, because several academics in Scotland have expressed views about it. However, it is a different matter from today's events.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great relief among Scottish families that the proposals for the introduction of tuition fees have been withdrawn?
Was it not the late Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, who said that the processes of his mind constantly readjusted themselves to the movement of outside events?
Mr. Younger: I do not know whether my hon. Friend will consider emulating the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and writing a thesis on that, but I have no doubt that it is a very wise comment.
Mr. George Foulkes rose—
Hon. Members: Another PhD?
Mr. Foulkes: Not yet.
Is not it clear from the way that the proposals of the Secretary of State for Scotland were in every respect—parental contribution, the level of increase in grant, the abolition of the minimum grant and the possibility of fees—a pale carbon copy of the English proposals that the right hon. Gentleman is no longer protecting the special interests of Scotland in respect of student awards? Is it not also clear that, far from moving towards greater devolution under this Government, we are moving towards greater centralisation and copying what happens in England?
Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman acted as Secretary of State for Scotland in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) and my noble Friend Lord Ross of Marnock used to, and protect the interests of Scotland?
Mr. Younger: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, the one thing that I try not to do is to act in the way that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) did when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Foulkes: Well, most of the time.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman alleges that my announcement is a carbon copy of the statement yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If it is a carbon copy, it is a good, strong one and not a pale one.
As for Scotland's interests, the only inference that I can draw from the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that he

513
thinks that it would be in the interests of Scottish parents to be paying parental contributions to fees when English parents are not doing so. If that is his position, I disagree totally. I have stood up for Scottish parents' interests in this matter.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from being to Scotland's disadvantage, these proposals bestow a special privilege, in that, with four-year courses, the lower contribution from parents and the fact that they do not have to contribute to tuition fees, they are getting more than English parents and English students south of the border in support from the State?
Will my right hon. Friend use the opportunity provided by the review of higher education spending, which is very much welcomed, to argue the case put forward by the principal of Stirling university, that funding of the universities should be based on the number of students that they are able to attract? That would guarantee the success of institutions such as Stirling which are able to attract students.
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend makes a good point. To the extent that this is a help to the parents of students at universities, it is 33⅓ per cent. more help for Scottish students doing four-year courses than for English students doing three-year courses.
I take my hon. Friend's second comment. I, too, saw the interesting ideas that the principal of Stirling university expressed, and they will be studied carefully.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What advice would the Secretary of State give to scientists working in Scotland? Would he suggest that they write long and articulate questions requiring answers to Conservative Members? Would that have some effect? Is he aware that the cut is appalling? What is the assessment of the Scottish Office of the number of alpha projects that will now be rejected? Those of us who met the vice-chancellors a fortnight ago were appalled by what Dr. Burnett and his colleagues had to tell us. Sir David Phillips, a serious science administrator, hinted in semi-public that Stirling might be one of the universities that could, in some circumstances, be axed. We do have a denial of this, do we not?
Mr. Younger: I have certainly heard no suggestion of that which formed the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I feel sure that if there had been any such suggestion, we would have heard something about it. I know of the hon. Gentleman's close interest in science. I maintain a close interest as well, along with the principals of the Scottish universities, although technically they are under the Department of Education and Science. I shall be meeting them soon and I shall be discussing these matters with them.
Mr. Gerald Malone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, far from being a humiliation, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), his statement is another welcome example of his ability to listen to Conservative Back-Bench opinion? His reassertion of the principle that university education will be free to all students and that tuition fees will not be charged is especially welcome. Will he further confirm that that is a principle to which he will give utmost force in the review?
Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is very much of advantage to parents in Scotland and is something that they will notice. I paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and attribute the language of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to his natural virility.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: First, I welcome the statement on behalf of my colleagues. I remind the Secretary of State that it should have come yesterday. It is being made today only because of protests from the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is Steel?"] He is leading my party! It would be more appropriate if the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science were on the Government Front Bench as well. The Secretary of State for Scotland has failed to convince me or my colleagues that he is able to protect Scotland's interests.
The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement—he has repeated the assertion several times since—that he recognises the difference between Scottish four-year courses and English three-year courses. If that is so, why did he accept the ruling of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the first place? He said in the past that he could make a different arrangement for travel grants for students in Scotland. Does he recognise that he should adopt a completely different system of grants to take account of Scottish circumstances? Will he repudiate any commitment to student loans and maintain the grant system?
Mr. Younger: We shall all be somewhat interested and relieved to hear that the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) is leading the hon. Gentleman's party. As I have said, the making of statements is very much a matter for the House, in the last resort. The making of several statements on the same day on the one subject has always been a problem. The House will have to decide what attitude it wants to take on that. The original decision was taken by the Government and the change which was announced yesterday was similarly a Government decision in which I was fully involved.
Mr. Alex Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has agreed that many parents will heave a sigh of relief as a consequence of the statement. However, against their relief must be set the great anxiety among those who are associated with scientific research in Scotland. They are concerned about their future because of funding implications. We already know that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Secretary of State for Education and Science will resign, but could they not at least have the decency now to apologise to the students who came to Parliament to exercise their democratic rights to try to influence the Government to change their mind?
Mr. Younger: It is only to be welcomed that students and many others come here to exercise their democratic rights, and long may they continue to do so. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about research budgets. However, it is too early to have concern. As I have said, I attach high priority to increasing the resources that we put into such research.
Mr. John Maxton: Can we have a guarantee from the Secretary of State that the cuts that will be implemented will not again hit housing, social work or any of the other parts of his budget? Secondly,

515
will he prove his independence by giving a guarantee that he will not countenance the introduction of a loans system for students in Scotland? Lastly, is he aware that the Secretary of State for Education and Science said on Tuesday afternoon that he had no intention of changing his mind on student grants and that the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon that he was part of a series of consultations? How many meetings took place between half-past three on Tuesday afternoon and half-past three on Wednesday afternoon, how many of those meetings did he or the Minister with responsibilities for education attend, and what part did they play in them?
Mr. Younger: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's list of meetings. The important thing is that consultations took place on all these matters throughout the time that decisions were being taken, and all the Departments involved were closely concerned with them. My hon Friends and I are considering from where in the Scottish block we shall find the money to make up for the changes that have been announced. We shall work that out over the block as a whole. As I promised in my statement, I hope that a second statement will be made next week to set out the results of all the discussions. I do not think that it would be right for me at this stage to pre-empt a decision either for or against the loan system. It is right that that issue should be part of the review that will be conducted into the supporting of students.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not the case that the Department of Education and Science for England and Wales has to find only 50 per cent. of the required savings from its budget while the Secretary of State for Scotland will have to find 60 per cent. from his? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that, while he has greater flexibility within his budget to look for savings, they will not come out of the budgets of social work, housing or health? It would be the grossest of impertinence if he were to make ordinary people, who are suffering because of hard-pressed services, pay for the Government's priority in looking after the richest people who are concerned with these cuts?
Mr. Younger: The savings will not come out of any of the budgets that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned or any particular budget, because none of the decisions has yet been taken. The savings will come out of the Scottish block as a whole, and I shall decide how that can best be done. Student loans are difficult to compare north and south of the border. That is because the university and education systems generally are wholly different. However, the relationship between the English and Welsh arithmetic and the Scottish arithmetic is straightforwardly governed by the operation of the formula which is used for all these matters without variation. Incidentally, this is a welcome development for anyone running the Scottish block. My predecessors realise that and it will be realised by anyone coming after me.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why must the Secretary of State always act like a simple stooge of the Secretary of State for Education and Science? First, he copied his right hon. Friend's original statement and now he is virtually copying the silly and amended statement which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday, which
516
will benefit only a minority of better-off parents. Will he do the decent thing and introduce a students' grant increase of at least 14 per cent. to restore the grant to what it was in 1979 when the Labour Government were in power? In the longer term, will he phase out parental contributions completely so that all students who can benefit from higher education will have the opportunity of doing so?
Mr. Younger: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he might think a little more deeply about the subject. I take his point about the reduction in the real level of grants and I am fully in support of all the decisions that the Government have taken on that. The hon. Gentleman might feel on reflection that he was rather unfair about the Scottish dimension. It is clearly desirable that parents north and south of the border should not be discriminated against, one way or the other. Some uniformity is very much to our advantage as well as to that of those south of the border. When there was a clear difference between students' travel arrangements north and south of the border, I made an entirely different arrangement from that made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and it was widely welcomed by students in Scotland.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. An important debate follows. I shall call all hon. Members who have been standing, but I ask for brief questions.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scottish parents with children at university and others who hope that their children will attend university later understand that nothing in life is free and that education is paid for by the taxpayer when no charge is made upon the parents? They understand that. Therefore, the decision reported today will be appreciated by parents of the kind referred to earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn).
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. It is worth reminding ourselves often that nothing is completely free. The system is designed to try to concentrate help on those who need it most. I accept that introducing parental contributions to fees for the first time in recent years was felt by parents to be unfair. That is why the decision was changed.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Secretary of State give some clear indication of the proportion of the adjustment in terms of the University Grants Committee and that part of the budget that comes within his responsibility? Will he take into account the crisis in education in Scotland? Does he agree that, instead of curtailing university and higher education, we should be expanding?
Is it not farcical that people who are graduating today from Scottish universities with first or second-class honours would not now be admitted to university because of Government constraints? Will the Secretary of State totally oppose any loans scheme, which would be anathema to everyone in Scotland?
Mr. Younger: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about a loans scheme. He will make his views known in the next few months when the system is reviewed. I have explained the proportions between south of the border and north of the border. Universities are and always have been dealt

517
with through the University Grants Committee. That is the way it should be. In Scotland the arrangements are made under the formula.
The hon. Gentleman claims that funds are being reduced. I remind him that we have increased funds, which are much needed, to our central institutions for technical education. I should have thought that he would have welcomed that.
Mr. David Lambie: Why is the Secretary of State so blindly following the recommendations of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for education in England? Last year the Secretary of State for Scotland gained credit among students and hon. Members from both sides of the House when he did not follow the recommendation by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to abolish travelling expenses. He continued to grant travel expenses to students in Scotland.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept today that traditions in Scotland are different? Will he examine again in the promised review the possibility of reducing parental contributions and of maintaining the minimum grant?
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about my decision on students' travel. It was welcomed, and it was my decision. If I had thought on this occasion that it was in the interests of Scottish parents to make them pay a contribution to fees, I should have suggested it. I do not think that that would be in the interests of Scottish parents, so I did not suggest it.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The people of Scotland have a right to know how decisions which affect them and them alone are taken. The Secretary of State referred to a collective decision. What Scottish ministerial representatives attended that unhappy collection of Ministers?
Mr. Younger: None of the decisions was taken without the fullest participation of Scottish Ministers, whose views were taken into account before any of the decisions were taken.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has given much less information to the House about his Department than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave yesterday? If the money is to come from the general block, exactly where will it come from? Will it come from local government, health or housing expenditure? If the money is so vital—I cannot see that it is—why does not the Secretary of State suggest that it comes from the contingency fund, since the Prime Minister had no difficulty in using that during the mining dispute?
Mr. Younger: A large part of this money comes by means of the formula from the Treasury. I have discretion—a discretion which my right hon. Friend does not have—to take it out of the share of the general Scottish block grant. As none of the decisions has yet been taken for the spending of individual parts of that block, what we are discussing today can be taken into account before those decisions are made.
Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State said that, in his review of student
518
spending, account will be taken of the differences in the Scottish education system. Can he guarantee that if at the end of that review it appears that a system suitable for England and Wales is not suitable for Scotland, he will be free to go his own way and to make separate decisions for Scotland? If he wants to take instructions from the English Minister beside him, we shall understand.
Mr. Younger: That is not how anything works. If it were in the interests of Scottish students and of the Scottish university system for different decisions to be made, of course I would put them forward.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that his repeated assertion today that he did not make a statement yesterday because it is difficult to make a number of statements in one day is completely false? Will he confirm that yesterday he made it clear that he had no intention of making any statement on the issue and that the protests registered yesterday by hon. Members on all the Opposition Benches are the reason for today's statement? The Secretary of State was dragged reluctantly to the Dispatch Box.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware of the widespread suspicion, shared by some of his hon. Friends, that Scotland is the subject of double jeopardy? When he comes to the House next week with what we hope will be a more definitive statement, will he deal more specifically with the reason why Scotland should pay twice? Is the Secretary of State intending to sit back and allow science and research budgets to be cut in this way?
My right hon. and hon. Friends place on record our utter disgust and lack of confidence because neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister responsible for education in Scotland attended any of the meetings which resulted in these decisions.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it and his last point is rubbish anyway. I am glad to be making a statement today, particularly because I was requested to by the hon. Gentleman and others. I fully understand the position, although I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman does. This is the normal way of doing things. The relationship between financial effects north of the border and south of the border is clear and is operated under the formula. The system has been welcomed by many people for a long time. As for the so-called cut in extra technical education, we are proposing an increase for central institutions for that precise purpose. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House again, but in answer to the question by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Secretary of State said that statements in the House were a matter for yourself and the House. [Interruption.] Well, he said that statements were a matter for the House, which makes them therefore a matter for you. He said that he could not make a statement yesterday because that was a matter for the House. Will you clarify the position, Mr. Speaker? The House needs to know whether it is a matter for us, for you or for Ministers to decide.
Mr. Speaker: Whether a statement is made is a matter for the Minister concerned, not for me.

Autumn Statement
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. More than 30 hon. Members are anxious to take part in this debate. I therefore intend, once again, to apply the 10 minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 8.50 pm. I appeal to Privy Councillors and other hon. Members who are called before 7 pm to bear in mind the interests of their colleagues and to keep their speeches brief.
It would be counter-productive for hon. Members to come to the Chair to ascertain where they stand on my preliminary list. I shall do my best to include in this debate those hon. Members who failed to catch my eye during the economic debate and the debate on the Queen's Speech. I shall give preference to those hon. Members today.
4.40 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Autumn Statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th November; welcomes the prospect of continuing low inflation and steady growth as the basis for maintaining the trend of rising employment; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on keeping the public expenditure planning total for 1985–86 within the figure published in the 1984 Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 9143).
This is the third occasion during the past six weeks on which the House has been able to debate the progress of the economy. I welcome this further opportunity for the House to consider in particular the statement I made on 12 November and to endorse the Government's economic strategy, which has already provided almost four years of steady economic growth with falling inflation and, despite the still lamentably high level of unemployment, a steady growth in the number of people in work since the spring of 1983.
That record owes a great deal to our resolution as a Government in tackling the relentless upward pressure of public expenditure, in reducing the share of national income absorbed by the public sector and in bringing forward resources for more productive use by private enterprise. As the Earl of Stockton in his recent and memorable maiden speech in another place said about slimming the public sector:
"it is very disagreeable…But it had to be done and it still has to be done."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 238.]
Mr. Eric S. Heifer rose—
Mr. Lawson: Before elaborating on those matters, I should like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), and to the members of his Committee.
Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lawson: I shall not give way. The House knows that I normally give way frequently. Mr. Speaker has said that there is a shortage of time, and I shall, therefore, be a little more parsimonious than I normally am in giving way.
I pay tribute to the Committee for the expedition with which it conducted its inquiry into the autumn statement. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing will not take it amiss if I say that I do not find myself 100 per cent. in agreement with every word of the Committee's
520
report. My right hon. Friend would perhaps be surprised, and some members of his Committee might even be disappointed or alarmed, if that were not so.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee can justly claim to have something of a proprietary interest in the autumn statement, because it was in response to an earlier report by its predecessor Committee that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, when he was Chancellor, presented the first autumn statement to the House in November 1982. This year's autumn statement, like its predecessors, brings together a number of announcements that fall to be made at this time of the year. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that its particular value lies in the fact that it allows the public spending plans for the year ahead to be set in the context of a fresh economic forecast.
We continue to make better progress on inflation than most commentators have expected, and this downward pressure should continue in the coming year. Although the forecast in the autumn statement does not predict much of a change in the inflation rate during the next 12 months, we shall still have achieved a significant period when inflation has been at or below 5 per cent. That was scarcely imaginable when we first took office a little over five years ago. Now, expectations are adjusting to that much lower rate of inflation, providing the basis for the further progress on inflation that our policies are designed to achieve.
Our policies are designed to achieve something else as well. By having a firm grip on public expenditure, holding it broadly constant in real terms over a period of years, we shall as the economy continues to expand, have progressive scope for reductions in taxation not just for the few, but for the many. We have achieved that already by an increase in tax thresholds well ahead of inflation, and I hope that we shall continue to do so. As I have said to both the House and the Committee, this occurs within a wide margin of uncertainty. The scope of perhaps £1·5 billion of tax reductions in the coming budget—
Ms. Clare Short: What about the unemployed? Tax cuts will not help them.
Mr. Lawson:—is something which will be of comfort, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, particularly to the unemployed.
We continue to hear it said that the years since 1981 have been a period of weak recovery. A closer examination of the figures shows that the pace of recovery of output has been far from weak. If growth in 1985 turns out as expected in the autumn statement forecast, the economy will have grown since 1981 by almost 12 per cent. That would more than match the output growth during the previous recovery period from 1975 to 1979. It would also compare particularly well with our competitors overseas. As the House knows, last year we had the highest rate of economic growth within the European Community. According to the Commission's latest estimates, this year, thanks to the coal strike, our rate of growth will be around the average for the Community—no better than that. Next year, however, the Commission expects us once again to be right at the top of the Common Market league table for growth. No doubt we shall hear in due course from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that there

521
has been no recovery—that it is simply a figment of the imagination since, he will argue, how else could unemployment remain so high.
Of course unemployment is too high. Of course every hon. Member wants it to be lower. Only the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook could persuade himself that the four years of recovery are somehow a complete illusion. The House knows better than that, and so do business and industry, which are now earning their best rate of return for a decade.
Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Chancellor explain something that has been genuinely puzzling me for the last few weeks? When the right hon. Gentleman wrote and published the medium-term financial strategy in 1980—when unemployment was below two million—he said that, as inflation came down and the public sector borrowing requirement was reduced, not only would output increase, but unemployment would come down. What has gone wrong?
Mr. Lawson: As inflation has come down, so employment has grown substantially.
There are three important ways in which this recovery differs from recoveries in recent times. First, this recovery has been accompanied by a sharp and necessary rise in the profits of industry and commerce. Secondly, there has been no great resurgence of stock building. In past recoveries, there was a great growth of stock building which proved to be an element of instability, because subsequently companies and industries tended to destock. In many cases, that is what caused the end of the recovery. Other recoveries have had to come to an end because of a resurgence of inflation, which has conspicuously not occurred during this recovery.
One great remaining worry is the level of unemployment. The level of unemployment could have improved if only real wages had grown less rapidly. It is no use the Opposition closing their eyes to that fact. I was interested to note that last weekend every Head of Government who attended the European Council meeting in Dublin — including the Socialist President of France, Mr. Mitterrand — approved the Commission's annual economic report which has, as its first item under the heading "For the expansion of employment", this statement:
"strict moderation in the evolution of real wages, consistent with the objective of achieving a pause in the growth or even a reduction in total real labour costs, which, with lower taxes and lighter burdens of employment regulation, would mean a cost structure of firms that would be more conducive to employment expansion."
That is the policy not merely of this Government but of everyone throughout the Community who has responsibility for dealing with the very difficult and intractable problem of unemployment.
Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lawson: However well we do in improving our own economic performance, we are inevitably exposed to the world background. The forces of protectionism threaten to poison the trading climate and weaken the fabric of international economic and political co-operation as a whole, as they did in the 1930s. The recent examples of unilateral action by the United States to limit imports of steel pipes and tubes from Community countries, and Canada's decision to maintain quantitative limits on
522
imports of footwear, are two recent examples. The challenge before us is not merely to resist protectionism but to push forward with negotiations for further liberalisation in the framework of the GATT.
A second cause for concern remains the level of world interest rates, which is closely linked with the economic prospects for the United States. The size of the American budget deficit — in relation in particular to American domestic savings — has inevitably pushed up interest rates and thus led to a sharp rise in the value of the dollar. The counterpart to the capital inflows financing the United States budget deficit is a substantial American current account trading and payments deficit of about $100 billion a year.
The United States will soon, for the first time, become a net international debtor; indeed, it could fairly quickly become the world's largest debtor. That the world's wealthiest economy should be a persistent large borrower of capital from the rest of the world is neither a desirable nor, in my opinion, a sustainable position. No other country could sustain the imbalances that we see in the United States for as long as the Americans have done. Even they are increasingly coming to recognise the need for painful remedial action.
President Reagan made it clear only yesterday that he intends to take further action to cut the deficit. Labour Members, wo seem to persist in the delusion that the American budget deficit is a blessing that we in Britain should seek to emulate, might listen to the views of the man who has to grapple with it—the American Treasury Secretary, Mr. Don Regan. Speaking only last weekend — [Interruption.] I suspect that what he said after the election is rather more significant than what he said before the election. Mr. Regan said:
"Deficit reduction is by far the most serious problem facing the US, the Administration and the Congress … Reducing the deficit is the No. 1 priority."
Mr. Peter Tapsell: I do not think that anyone would disagree that the number one problem facing the United States is its deficit. Equally, I do not think that anyone would disagree that the number one problem facing Britain is its unemployment. What does my right hon. Friend say in response to the argument that if £1·5 billion is cut off taxes, much of that will be spent on imports and will help the Japanese and German workers, whereas if the same amount of money is invested in a selective capital investment programme, very few imports will be involved but a good many new jobs will be created?
Mr. Lawson: I regard it as extraordinarily defeatist to assume that whenever the British people have more money to spend, British industry is quite incapable of meeting their needs. I do not believe it for a moment.
A third area of concern is the international debt problem. We have avoided the disasters prophesied by many, but for the future it is important for financial flows to developing countries to take forms that are better suited to their needs. That means forms by which funds are committed for a longer period, and where the servicing costs are more certain or better related to the return on the assets which they finance. In particular, that means a resumption of direct investment. Many debtor countries should ask themselves whether past inhibitions on such investment should be continued. I hope, too, that those

523
developed countries that maintain exchange controls that inhibit outward investment of this kind will ask themselves the same question.
We can be proud of the growing part that British capital has been able to play in the developing world since the abolition of exchange controls. Since 1979, private investment in the under-developed countries has averaged over £4 billion a year. Not only is that a multiple of official aid flows—about the maintenance of which the House was recently concerned — but private investment is a form of assistance that typically brings with it valuable managerial and technical skills.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the American federal budget deficit and the profound danger that that constitutes, not least to the Third world countries to which he was referring just now, but will he agree that that deficit has been rather helpful to him in some of his very proper preoccupations in recent months?
Has not the effect of an over-valued dollar been that my right hon. Friend's oil revenues have been that much more buoyant and helped him to meet his target, and to put his £7 billion PSBR target back into place for 1985–86? Has not the effect also been that, because of the lower parity of sterling, our exports have been more buoyant, and my right hon. Friend's tax revenues have been more buoyant?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that is not a stable or sustainable set of circumstances and that we shall have to make further adjustments fiscally to achieve his objectives in future years?
Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend, who made a rather long intervention — I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not deal with every point in it—that it is not a sustainable position. I do not think that it will mean making adjustments at present of the kind that he has suggested may be necessary in later years. But, as we get nearer to those years, if such adjustments prove to be necessary they will be made to maintain the integrity of the medium-term financial strategy. As hon. Members will know, following the London summit initiative last June, there are to be special meetings in Washington next April of the International Monetary Fund interim committee and the IMF and World Bank development committee to discuss these and other international financial issues that are of particular concern to developing and debtor countries.
Above all, the developing countries need imported capital for their development, and export markets for their goods. I cannot help noting that the declared policy intention of Labour spokesmen—if they ever again form a Government — is to inhibit the flow of capital by imposing controls, and to inhibit the flow of trade by imposing import controls. So much for their crocodile tears about the developing countries.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lawson: No.
I have mentioned the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. It focused on two points in particular—how the Government set their spending priorities, and the treatment in our plans of asset sales and debt interest.
524
Since 1981, when the Government first moved to a full cash planning system of public expenditure control, the discipline of holding to plans, while finding room for the areas of growth in spending within them, has involved an exhaustive search in each public expenditure survey for savings and economies across the board, and a rigorous examination of priorities both within and between departmental programmes. At the end of that process there are inevitably some very hard decisions to be made. The very difficulty of those decisions throws a spotlight on the process by which the decisions are reached, and it is to that process that I should now like to turn.
The annual public expenditure survey involves a lengthy period each year during which officials in the spending Departments and the Treasury prepare an analysis of programmes with assessments of the implications of increasing and reducing expenditure in specific areas. There are meetings of officials, both bilateral between the Treasury and the individual spending Departments, and multilateral, when the principal spending Departments come together under Treasury chairmanship to consider these matters. We then come to the decision-making phase of the survey, when Ministers make their political judgments on the basis of the factual material and the analysis provided by the officials. Ultimately, there are the decisions of the Cabinet as a whole, which exercises its judgment as to which matters it will examine in greater detail and which in less detail.
Because those decisions are important and because some of them are controversial, there is naturally much interest in the particular setting in which they are taken. If a group of Ministers meets late at night or is dubbed the star chamber, that is instantly newsworthy, perhaps more so than the issues being discussed. One point, however, is fundamental. Whatever the group of Ministers or Departments involved and whatever the forum or setting, there can be no magic mechanism for setting priorities within and between programmes. However detailed the factual basis provided by the officials and however sophisticated the analysis of output and performance for the programme concerned, in the end there has to be a political judgment and a political decision. [Interruption.] I am dealing with the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service to which I, unlike the Opposition Front Bench, have the courtesy to give serious attention.
There is a homely analogy to be drawn, which I tried to make when I appeared before the Select Committee. Just as when a family wonders whether to have the house painted or to go away for a holiday, or whatever, there must first be an appraisal of the costs and so on, then the decision and choice. In Government there is no utilitarian calculus that permits numerical comparison of the respective benefits of, say, an extra military aircraft as against more disaster relief or more equipment for the research councils. There is, of course, extensive analysis and appraisal, but at the end there is a political judgment to be made which in practice is necessarily determined as much by constraints as by priorities.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I agree that there is no magical solution, but it is surely in the interests of the House that the mechanism should be more widely known. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether the issue of student grants went to the Cabinet or to the star chamber?
Mr. Lawson: All issues are set before the Cabinet, including that one.
There are two final points on this subject. After looking carefully at a range of spending programmes, Ministers may often make a judgment in the light of what the analysis reveals about the pressures on a particular programme and then set that programme at a particular level, leaving the Minister in charge to decide precisely how the total should be distributed among the various elements in the programme. That was touched on in the Select Committee report. I see no possible objection, methodological, constitutional, political or otherwise, to such a proceeding. If the Minister responsible thinks that he can improve on the benefit delivered by a given total expenditure, he must be free to do so.
Importantly, though not surprisingly, the repetition of the process that I have described in successive public expenditure surveys produces over time a marked change in the composition of public expenditure in line with the priorities of the Government of the day. If hon. Members take a close look at the Green Paper, "The Next 10 Years", published at the time of this year's Budget, they will see that very large shifts have occurred within total public expenditure since 1978–79 — shifts determined by the Government's policies, pledges and priorities.
The procedures for public expenditure plans are not and cannot be mechanistic either in theory or in practice. As I have said, the decisions are often controversial and always difficult, but they are made in the course of a procedure which properly constrains Ministers to weigh each decision against a range of alternatives. I note and welcome the fact that the Select Committee intends to return to this in future reports.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: That process having been gone through and a distribution of public expenditure having been announced, if circumstances then arise in which it has to be reconsidered, why does the adjustment that follows have to fall upon the same Department, in yesterday's case the Department of Education and Science, which then has to find more money to the detriment of the science budget than to the detriment of the Chancellor's freedom to cut taxes in the Budget?
Mr. Lawson: There are two answers to that. First, it is the Government's policy to maintain the overall level of public expenditure broadly constant in real terms. That is an overall constraint due to our policy of providing scope for progressive reductions in the burden of taxation. Secondly, within that constraint—I believe that this is true for any Government—choices then have to be made and more money for one heading of public expenditure inevitably means less for another.
The Select Committee also recommends that asset sales should not be treated as negative expenditure and that debt interest should be included in the planning total. The Select Committee recognises that that is well-trodden ground and the Government's position has been made clear on a number of occasions. Purchases of assets add to public expenditure, so it is entirely consistent for sales of assets to reduce it. Since the planning total is a control total for public expenditure, it is more sensible for it to include debt interest, which is susceptible only to very limited short-term control. That does not mean, however, that either asset sales or debt interest are ignored. Debt
526
interest is taken fully into account in assessing the total public expenditure position. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the composition of public expenditure and receipts is taken into account in assessing the appropriate size of the public sector borrowing requirement.
The real and important question to which all Governments must address themselves, however, is whether on the basis of existing definitions the PSBR is too high or too low or, perhaps, at the right level. I note that the Select Committee is silent on that, although no doubt we shall be hearing the views of its Chairman, the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is your right hon. Friend."] Indeed, he is my friend as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has said, if more money is to be spent on a particular programme, that money must be found elsewhere. We are all concerned about the level of Government expenditure. But why must it be found from the same Department? Why can it not come from the total realm of public expenditure?
Mr. Lawson: In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, exceptionally an increase of £10 million was allowed for the programme in question. Nevertheless, when an agreement has been concluded between the Treasury and a spending Department, very special justification is required to reopen agreements already reached.
As I have said, the treatment of asset sales is well understood. Far and away the most important implication of asset sales, however, is the policy that lies behind it — privatisation. The privatisation programme is on course and proving outstandingly successful. Twelve major companies, a number of other enterprises and more than 400,000 jobs have been shifted from the state sector to the private sector. I stress the jobs aspect deliberately. Enough companies have now been privatised to show that privatisation is a textbook proof of the benefits of free market enterprise over collective state activity. The common thread running through each of those privatised companies is a higher turnover, leading to higher profits, more investment and more jobs. That can be seen right across the board. That is why privatisation is and will continue to be a major element in our economic strategy.
A central feature of that strategy is encouraging the spread of individual ownership. We want to make a reality of the vision of a property-owning and earning democracy that Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden first put before the British people. Last month's successful sale of 3,000 million shares in British Telecom was a massive leap forward in achieving that objective. In one day 2 million people became direct owners in one of the growth industries of the future. Probably well over 1 million of them had never before owned shares directly. When we first proposed the sale of more than 50 per cent. of British Telecom we were told that it could not be done, that it was impossible, that the market could not cope with anything of that size, that individual shareholders would not want it, that there were not enough of them to take up the offer, and that the rest of the world would spurn it.
Nevertheless, we decided to go ahead, and the ensuing sale was an outstanding success. It is the largest single issue ever undertaken in the world. It proves that the City of London has unrivalled ability in organising and

527
arranging new finance. The sale increased from more than 170,000 to 400,000 the number of workers who have joined the free enterprise sector. It released from the shackles of state control a company of world stature in one of the industries on which our future will depend.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, and I suspect in many others, many people who successfully purchased British Telecom shares were tenants who purchased their council houses, and five years ago never imagined that they would own either their houses or shares in any enterprise?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sale is a central strand of our strategy and is of first and fundamental importance in the sort of society we wish to create.
The successful sale of British Telecom holds two important lessons. First, it reveals a vast and untapped yearning among ordinary people for a direct stake in ownership of British enterprise. They do not want the spurious, theoretical ownership offered by state capitalism. They are not even totally satisfied with the somewhat remote ownership offered by institutional capitalism. They want a direct stake in particular firms, with which they can indentify.
Investment in shares has begun to take its place with ownership of a home and either a bank or building society deposit as a way for ordinary people to participate in enterprise and wealth creation. We are seeing the birth of people's capitalism.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his theory might totally satisfy all his Conservative supporters if, on Sunday 30 September one of the giants in the City, Johnson Matthey—despite being in the private sector and not having had a ballot to decide the issue—had not had to be rescued by the Government and the Bank of England, the taxpayers' bank, with a sum of £75 million? Those entrepreneurs at Johnson Matthey were running an uneconomic unit and their reserves became exhausted—the Government's argument regarding coal mines. Why, when the Government are so bent on privatisation and a property-owning democracy, did the Government use the Bank of England to rescue their crooked City friends?
Mr. Lawson: I am not sure whether on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that his last words were appropriate. I may have something to say about that in due course, but not today.
The second lesson from the British Telecom experience is that 2 million people have chosen to ignore the Labour party's threat of renationalisation. They have put their money on the table, and put it on the blue square. The weight of their money says that there will never by another Labour Government—at least not for so long as the Labour party remains committed to nationalisation, Socialism and the destruction of free enterprise.
The millions of ordinary people, from taxi drivers to pensioners, who have brushed aside Labour's threats of renationalisation will give business a whole new injection of confidence to plan ahead and take full advantage of opportunities for enterprise and growth, which only a free enterprise society can offer.
528
As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is always a little coy about the Labour party's policies, I invite him to tell the House what type of autumn statement we could have expected from a Labour Government. Under the Labour Government there was no formal autumn statement, but an almost routine autumn crisis. In four years out of five there was a crisis, and with it came an autumn Budget to reverse the damage caused by the spring Budget or to amend the aummer or early autumn Budgets. Under the Labour Government Budgets were not merely flowers that bloomed in the spring, but weeds that flourished throughout the year. Despite that, there was not one autumn when the Labour Government could report lower interest rates, single-figure inflation, 300,000 extra jobs or 3 per cent. growth.
We shall ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment. There is one phrase in it—the allegation that our policies are calculated to sustain a high degree of unemployment — which we reject with anger and disdain. It is the very antithesis of the truth. All our policies are calculated to improve the prospects for generating jobs that can be sustained into the future. No party would deliberately foster an increase in unemployment as an objective of policy. Political parties may, and do, differ as to the best means of eradicating the scourge of unemployment, but all parties are united in pursuing that objective, as they should be.
The allegation in the Labour party's amendment demeans those who made it. What is more, it comes ill from a party that knows that the miners' strike is destroying jobs, yet calculates that it is in its interest to support that destructive conflict as long as it persists. It comes ill from a party that knows that excessive pay destroys jobs, yet calculates that it is in its interests to support militancy wherever it manifests itself. The allegation comes particularly ill from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who has admitted that the Labour party's economic policy is "fatally flawed", because it ignores the link between pay and jobs. Yet, with cynical calculation, the right hon. Gentleman remains the spokesman for a policy that he has described as "incredible".
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has touched on the most critical of all matters that face the country, unemployment. Will he tell the House what the cost in money terms of unemployment is? In doing so, I respectfully ask him to answer the question put earlier. If some of the money wasted on paying unemployment benefit and financing all the manpower schemes that the Government have introduced were directed to selected capital projects, would that not be of great benefit to the country and reduce unemployment?
Mr. Lawson: There is no benefit in capital projects unless they are worth while in their own right. I am surprised that my hon. Friend says that manpower projects are a waste of money. The youth training scheme, in particular, on which we are spending unprecedented sums, is extremely valuable to young people who will find the jobs of the future.
The alliance also participates in this shabby and cynical calculation. Its policy on jobs, such as it is, has shrunk to the proposal that we should spend £1 billion on road building and other major construction projects. Yet all

529
hon. Members know that there is not a single major construction or road building project that is not opposed at local level by the Liberal party.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a statement, that will be recorded in the Official Report, which even begins to bear out his outrageous suggestion?
Mr. Lawson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so sensitive on that point. It obviously drove home. When the Liberal party's calculations tell it where the votes lie, jobs go out of the window. It is generous in theory but completely selfish in practice. Unemployment has been growing in Europe every year but one since 1973.
Mr. Stephen Ross rose—
Mr. Lawson: I shall not give way. I have already given way to 50 per cent. of the Liberal party.
It is absurd to say that that remorseless and tragic increase has been the calculated consequence of the diverse policies pursued by all the Labour, Conservative, Social Democratic, Socialist, Lib-Lab and coalition Governments who have been in power across Europe in the past decade. Since the general election, 300,000 extra people have found jobs in this country. Unfortunately, that is not enough to absorb the unexpectedly large number of people seeking jobs, but it is a much better performance than the rest of Europe, where the number of jobs appears to have continued to shrink, and where unemployment continues to increase faster than in this country.
Those countries that have been the most successful in creating jobs have been those across the Atlantic and the Pacific, which have relied more upon free enterprise, low taxation, fewer controls, non-militant unions and flourishing enterprise culture. Those are the policies that this Government are seeking to introduce to enable this country to generate the jobs and create the wealth that we all wish to see.
The real weakness of the Opposition's case lies not in what they say but in what they fail to say. In repeated debates in the House they have made virtually no attempt to spell out a credible and coherent explanation of how they would resolve the problems that this and every other major country face. To them, 3 million unemployed is not a problem to be solved, but a tragedy to be exploited. They are like a doctor who offers his patients sympathy but refuses any diagnosis, prognosis or prescription. Real compassion requires from us more than sympathy. It requires a willingness to face tough choices and to stand up to vested interests.
Unless the Opposition parties are prepared to tell us what they would do—and why it would work now when it failed in the past and has been rejected by nearly every Government in the free world—those parties will find themselves in the wilderness not just for a few years but for a generation.
The Government have had the courage to make tough decisions and the resolution to stand up to various vested interests. They have had the consistency to pursue a long-term strategy that offers the people of this country the vision of a free economy, which will harness their energies to the creation of jobs and the generation of wealth—wealth that we want as much for the welfare of the needy as to fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the majority of our people.
5.22pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"refuses to support an economic policy which is calculated to create and sustain a high level of unemployment; rejects the demonstrably false belief that a constant reduction in public spending will produce an automatice improvement in economic performance; and condemns the reduced levels of regional aid, student grants, house-building and improvement, overseas aid and social security benefit which are the real, but initially unrevealed, consequences of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement."
There is one aspect of the Government's motion to which I offer an immediate and heartfelt welcome. At least we have been spared the counterfeit compassion and pretence that unemployment is soon about to fall. We must assume that the Government have accepted the advice offered to them three weeks ago by the Financial Times which said:
"It is impossible to get away for ever with saying that unemployment will shortly begin to come down or at least level off if plainly it does not."
Until today, or until the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and told it that his estimates on unemployment had proved false, the Government's reaction to every complaint about rising unemployment was to say, "Wait a little longer and things will get better soon."
The nation and the 4 million—that is the true figure —unemployed, have now been waiting for five years, and things have become continually worse. At least it says something for the Chancellor's political acumen that he has at last begun to abandon the pretence that a strict and rigorous control of public borrowing and a constant reduction of the monetary aggregate will lead to a certain and automatic reduction in unemployment. That theory, on which the medium term financial strategy was based, and upon which all the false promises of reduced unemployment were based, is palpably wrong. It does the Chancellor's political acumen credit that he no longer pretends what has been the main thesis upon which the Government have attempted to defend their unemployment record since 1979.
Even the Government have abandoned—I welcome that abandonment—the combination of ignorance and hypocrisy which produced the constant promise that unemployment would fall. Today's motion and today's speech by the Chancellor—despite all the bogus anger at the end — offered no policy for dealing with unemployment. That is because the Government have no policy for unemployment except to sit back and watch it rise year by year while they concentrate upon the economic objectives which are more important to them and their class.
The autumn statement reaffirms the strategy — I use the word again — which intentionally increased unemployment and will increase it still further. That is the strategy for which the Government supporters will be voting tonight. They may wring their hands about the plight of the unemployed, and briefly bare their souls during the unreported evenings of economic debates; they may anonymously dissociate themselves from the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately—courtesy of the Lobby system — but tonight they will troop into the Division Lobby to vote for a high unemployment policy.

531
That, in the view of the Opposition, is the central issue of the debate and the issue with which the Chancellor has failed lamentably to deal. The central issue of the debate and of politics today—indeed, the great moral question facing the nation today—is the level of unemployment, the existence of an alternative which can reduce that level and the Government's unwillingness to adopt that alternative because they have higher priorities in other spheres.
Before I describe that alternative—the alternative that the Chancellor persists in saying is never offered to him but which is offered to him not just by me but by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by a large number of his Back Benchers who have tried to put the case to him today—I wish to deal with two other aspects of the autumn statement.
The first is the credibility of the figures upon which the autumn statement is based, and, in consequence, the credibility of the Chancellor. Everything that the Chancellor says is treated with virtually universal suspicion. It is the fate of most Chancellors of the Exchequer to be accused of deception by their opponents. The Chancellor has moved to the Back Benches. That is a new presence. I shall repeat the passage that I am anxious that the Chancellor should hear. It is the fate of most Chancellors to be accused by their opponents of deception, but this Chancellor's great achievement is that he has managed to be accused of it by his friends. Let me quote to him from the Daily Telegraph a leader called "Autumn Fudge". It stated:
"it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is not quite telling it like it is."
On the same day, the Daily Mail rightly said:
"The House of Commons wanted above all to know if there was anything in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement which might make the unemployment outlook less bleak. What those listening to him heard instead was deliberately terse generalisations."
One almost feels sorry for Mr. William Deedes and Sir David English who, after years of unremitting sycophantic support for the Tory party, are provoked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer into a moment of honest objectivity. Indeed, the Chancellor is so reckless about his reputation that he will do and say anything to avoid the real discussion on his own policies and on the record for which he is responsible. That is why he always wants to talk about what he falsely believes the Labour alternative to be. Let me tell the Chancellor, as I have told him before, that while he remains Chancellor and presides over an economy in which at least 3·5 million, and possibly 4 million, men and women are on the dole and that while he has no policy to produce a better unemployment record and no plans for reducing unemployment, we shall make him talk about what he has done and about what he has failed to do.
No matter how much he may try to run away from it, we are debating this afternoon the real consequences of the autumn statement. They were not revealed on 12 November. They were revealed by Ministers who were drafted in to fill in the details that the Chancellor chose not to give to the House. Those Ministers were required to have the courage of the Chancellor's own convictions in order to do the dirty work for the Chancellor and give the bad news about what the autumn statement really meant.
Let me give some examples of what I refer to. The cut in regional aid—already before the autumn statement 35
532
per cent. below the 1979 figure—is now, thanks to the autumn statement, to be cut by a further £1·5 billion over the next five years. Let me ask the Chancellor, in relation to the cut in regional aid, a question that I shall ask him continually this afternoon: why do this Government and the right hon. Gentleman always choose the high unemployment option?
Secondly, student grants have been cut by 14 per cent. since 1979. Despite turning and running, despite the scuffle, despite the U-turn, student grants are to suffer a further fall in real value of 1·5 per cent. in 1985–86. There is to be a further cut in overseas aid, an increase in water charges, an increase in the gas and electricity tax and, most significant of all concerning the real results of the autumn statement—not a word about which we heard from the Chancellor when the autumn statement was made and not a word about which we have heard from the Chancellor this afternoon — there is to be a further cut in the housing programme.
We are told in paragraph 2.15 of the autumn statement that the cut in the housing programme is £65 million. That in itself is bad enough. It is a further blow to the construction industry where 400,000 men and women are already out of work. It is a further blow for the badly housed and homeless families who will number 1 million by 1988. It is also a deception. While the reduction in gross capital provision for housing is said to be £65 million, the figures subsequently published by the Department of the Environment show that the change in the cash limit is £495 million. The two sets of figures are massaged into compatibility by the forecast that the income from council house sales will rise by £430 million next year.
I ask the Chief Secretary, on the assumption that he is to make a serious speech tonight, to state what evidence there is to substantiate the view that the income from sales of council houses will increase next year by £430 million, thus holding the cut in council house building to the figure that the Chancellor pretends it will be. According to a parliamentary answer from the Department of the Environment, quite the opposite is possible. The answer given on 9 November states that receipts from the sale of council houses have begun to decline. That is not surprising. The first flush of enthusiasm to buy is over. [Interruption.] The Chancellor must laugh at the Department of the Environment, not at me. The attempts by the Government to increase sales by the inclusion of old people's dwellings and disabled persons' dwellings has rightly been defeated.
What is more — here is another humorous matter about which the Chancellor may care to laugh, but which he may care to refer to the Department of the Environment—the Department says in its answer that it has no way of knowing whether income from the sale of council houses goes towards building more houses or whether it is used for other purposes. Yet the Chancellor blandly says, to justify his phoney figures, that because next year there will be an additional income of £430 million, the cut is only £65 million.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I do not know the constituency of the hon. Gentleman, but he is the one who always seems to be attending hunt balls.
Mr. Soames: If the right hon. Gentleman were to forbid the sale of council houses, how exactly would he finance his massive building programme?
Mr. Hattersley: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall deal with the financing of the reduction in unemployment. I promise the hon. Gentleman that in a moment I shall make the case that he has asked me to make, but in my own way. May I also ask him to focus his formidable intellect upon the point I was trying to make: since there is no way of calculating the increase in the number of council house sales and of knowing what the income from council house sales will be spent on, how can the Chancellor, with any integrity, announce that that is the reason why council house building has not been cut so much as the autumn statement suggests? The answer is that the Chancellor could not with integrity make such an allegation.
The entire figure is an invention, made to balance the Chancellor's books. It has not even fooled the Building Employers Confederation, a body which is easily enough fooled by a Conservative Government. The more damage the Conservative Government do to the building industry, the more money the building industry gives to the Conservative Government. However, in this case the builders have seen through the Government. They report in their bulletin that while the Government pretend that there will be a 6 per cent. fall in building next year, in reality the fall will be 25 per cent. That is a shameful fact. It demonstrates that everybody who does business with the Chancellor—builders no less than politicians—has to look for the sleight of hand, the double counting and the dubious assumption.
The housing example which I have given has a triple significance. First, it demonstrates the Government's passion for public expenditure cuts. Secondly, it demonstrates the Chancellor's special way with figures. Thirdly, it demonstrates what I said a moment ago and shall say many times again: when given a choice, the Chancellor always chooses the high unemployment option. I say again that the Chancellor has chosen it because he has other options and priorities which are more important to him than, for instance, a building programme which would sustain a higher level of employment.
His hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) urged upon him a spending programme for capital projects. The Chancellor blandly — indeed, fatuously—replied that capital spending programmes are to be commended only if what the money is spent on is worth while. [Interruption.] Let the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who laughed, tell me whether he believes that building houses for the 300,000 families who are homeless in this country is worth while. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman, or the Minister whom he serves, whether he believes that the new capital which is necessary for British Rail is worth while, whether he believes that the infrastructure for ports and roads, which is necessary for the economy of this country, is worth while. It is, I repeat, fatuous to say that capital spending is desirable only if one can demonstrate that there are projects which are desperately needed. Every hon. Member could give the Chancellor a list of capital projects which would be desirable and which at the same time would put Britain back to work.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be pinned down too much, but will he tell the House how many jobs he considers would be created by the list he has given?
Mr. Hattersley: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall give him that information. It is not a new figure. It is a figure which has been quoted by many Conservative Members, to some of whom I shall refer in a moment. It is a figure which has been offered to the Chancellor by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and by the London Business School, the Valhalla of monetarism. Everybody in this country, except the Chancellor, is prepared to calculate the number of jobs which can be created by investment in the public infrastructure.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rate of return for each of the proposed investments at least has to be considered?
Mr. Hattersley: When I have worked my way round to the model that I propose to describe, the hon. Gentleman will discover that we have thought of that as well. I propose to work my way round to it by dealing first with the central issue. If there is money to spare, as the Chancellor hopes and plans, how should that spare money—I put it in colloquial terms—be used?
We know that the central object of the Chancellor's economic policy is not an economic object, but a political object. It is a cut in income tax. The hard truth is that the unemployed, increasing in numbers, will have to pay for it.
It works this way: by massaging the figures, the Chancellor has produced what he calls a fiscal adjustment of £1·5 billion. That is largely a windfall, produced by oil prices being calculated in dollars and the depreciation of the pound running simultaneously with that calculation. The chief economic adviser to the Treasury told the Select Committee, to which I also pay tribute, that a fall of 10 per cent. in the sterling oil price would result in the automatic and certain disappearance of that £1·5 billion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be shaking his head, but the comments of his chief economic adviser are on the record. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to contradict him, I shall give way at once. Answer came there none.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I think that the Chancellor has a young champion who will joust on his behalf.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman suggested that income tax cuts were a substitute for a policy to help to promote jobs. Does he seriously contend that the low thresholds of income tax that we still have, even after the improvements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, have nothing to do with unemployment and do not contribute to it? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the unemployment trap exists?
Mr. Hattersley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to attempt to deal with the point that I was making, but he asked me a different question, which I shall answer. I believe that a pound spent on reducing income tax at any level is less likely to have a direct effect on unemployment than a pound spent on public works. I shall justify that.

535
Before the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) sidetracked me, I was saying that the chief economic adviser to the Treasury insists that the £1·5 billion will disappear if the sterling price of oil changes by 10 per cent.
Let me reassure apprehensive Conservative Members that whatever happens, the Chancellor will find some money for income tax cuts in the next Budget—not a lot, and nothing like the additional tax burden of £22·5 billion a year imposed by a Government who were elected to cut taxes, but enough to allow them to make the bogus claim that at last income tax has been cut.
That is why the Chancellor is prepared to increase the fiscal adjustment by increasing the tax on electricity and gas. I hope that, as even the Daily Mail urges the Chancellor to stop pretending that it is not a tax, we may get a little honesty from him upon that subject. To get the surplus for a cut in income tax, national assets are being sold. To get the surplus, the Treasury is contemplating imposing VAT on books, newspapers, fuel, children's shoes and what the Treasury calls luxury foods, which turn out to be coffee and biscuits.
None of that has anything to do with economic performance, and it certainly has nothing to do with social justice. It has to do with the political imperative of cutting income tax. That political necessity, no less than other factors, such as the Government's desire to break the trade unions and their willingness to use the unemployed as a way of holding down prices, is why I repeat my accusation that the Government are intentionally running a policy which they know produces a high and increasing level of unemployment.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: If income tax were cut substantially, would the skillcentres that are being under-used or closed throughout the country be re-opened or used more?
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend makes the point that Conservative Members seem unable to grasp, even though it is so obvious. If the Chancellor is producing a £1·5 billion surplus to distribute in income tax cuts, every public expenditure cut made to achieve that surplus will have to be written off as the price of those income tax cuts. If Conservative Members do not understand that, they lack a knowledge not of economics, but of elementary arithmetic.
We have always argued—and I argue again today—that a substantial relaxation in the Government's fiscal and monetary stance is necessary for the revival of confidence and demand. However, I wish to argue my case for reducing unemployment not in my own terms of an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, which I certainly support, but in the Chancellor's terms, because he keeps telling us that he will have at least £1·5 billion to spend. If hon. Members are honest, they will all concede that he could do more about unemployment than he chooses to do. Why does the Cancellor always choose the high unemployment option?
I refer the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the work done by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies and the monetarist London Business School, which came to a simultaneous and agreed solution: £1 billion spent on tax cuts reduces unemployment by about 30,000 in four years,
536
but £1 billion spent on investment, particlarly capital investment in the public sector on infrastructure, reduces unemployment by about 185,000 in four years.
Why, apart from the political imperative, apart from the chairman of the associations who forced the change of mind yesterday, and apart from the prejudiced opinions of Conservative supporters who do not know much—and care less—about the unemployed, does the Chancellor choose to spend the money in the way in which he is determined to spend it?
Mr. Edward Leigh: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly? Will the Opposition go into the next election emulating the examples of Mr. Walter Mondale who promised higher taxes? If so, they will certainly meet a similar fate to that suffered by Mr. Mondale. Alternatively, will the Opposition emulate the example of their former leader, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and try to fudge the issue? If so, they will meet the same fate as he suffered.
Mr. Hattersley: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we shall do, but, first, let me tell him what we shall not do. We shall not go into the next election promising to cut taxes and then increase them by £22·5 billion a year.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we shall do. I shall repeat it shortly in the prepared part of my speech, but I tell him without hesitation that if I, whether as Opposition spokesman or as Chancellor of the Exchequer, have to choose between cuts in income tax or cuts in unemployment, I will choose cuts in unemployment. Indeed, I go further. I believe that Conservative Members, with a number of honourable and notable exceptions, mistake the mood of the country if they believe that our people say, "Let us have our taxes cut if we are working, because we do not care about the unemployed." I believe that many people in work would make the same choices as I propose to make and would give priority to tackling unemployment.
I want to say two other things about the Chancellor's proposals and his attitude to unemployment. I have already observed and rejoiced in the fact that he no longer cries crocodile tears and wrings his hands in mock horror. Nor does he any longer pretend that high unemployment is an act of malign fate which has been imposed on him by some external force. Now he is prepared to talk about possible solutions. If he is prepared to talk about possible solutions, that must mean that he believes that he could do something about it in certain circumstances.
The Chancellor talks about two solutions and I want to speak about both briefly. But first is the idea that unemployment can be reduced by lower real wages. The Chancellor must know that lower real wages will not come about. He should know that even if they did, they would not reduce unemployment. To talk about lower real wages every time unemployment is mentioned is really to look for scapegoats, not answers.
Mr. Lawson: How about an incomes policy, then?
Mr. Hattersley: I shall come to that. If there were a massive injection of effective demand into the economy, it would be important to ensure that that new demand, coming from a massive increase in Government spending, was not dissipated in an increase in money wages. But that, in conditions of expansion, is quite different from

537
what the Chancellor is now proposing at the bottom of a deflationary slide. If the Chancellor does not understand that, no wonder the country is in the mess that it is.
The second solution to unemployment, to which I hope the Chief Secretary will pay particular attention, was offered by the noble Lord Young on Tuesday. The solution that he offered to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers was the abolition of supplementary benefit for young people between the ages of 16 and 18. [Interruption.] Young people under 18 would have to be wiser and older than the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary for my initial contention to apply.
Lord Young proposed the abolition of supplementary benefit for young people between the ages of 16 and 18. When Lord Young was appointed as Minister with special responsibility for employment — or unemployment — I predicted that all he would do was produce gimmicks—a change in the figures rather than a change in the real level of unemployment. The idea that he might propose anything as cruelly heartless as removing young people between the ages of 16 and 18 from receipt of supplementary benefit never struck me for a moment. We want the Chief Secretary to tell us tonight whether that member of the Cabinet was speaking for the Government when he proposed that young unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 18 should no longer receive supplementary benefit.
I understand the benefit from that. It may well be that by doing that 150,000 or 200,000 names will be removed from the register of unemployed, but not a single job would be created. Not a single reduction in total unemployment would be achieved. Enormous hardship and suffering would be created. I tell the Chief Secretary a third time: we expect him to tell us tonight whether on Tuesday Lord Young spoke for the Government or whether that is a proposition which not even the Government will contemplate.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: He can tell us now.
Mr. Hattersley: As my right hon. Friend says, he could tell us now if he chose to do so.
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Hattersley: My difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is twofold.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Hattersley: You must sit down when I am standing up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean me.
Mr. Hattersley: My difficulty is twofold. The first is that I am giving way more often than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would wish. The second is that all the questions that I direct at the organ grinder keep being answered by the monkeys. Since the Chief Secretary will not answer my question I shall let the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) try.
Mr. Cash: Has the right hon. Gentleman accurately described what Lord Young said the other day? Did he not in fact say that it was only when young people refuse to take jobs or training that they would perhaps not get supplementary benefit? Will he please answer that question?
Mr. Hattersley: The answer is no, I did not misquote Lord Young. His speech was described extensively in the Financial Times. It was dealt with in that paper's first leader. Lord Young asked the question:
"Is it right that we should pay young people for doing nothing?"
The only possible conclusion one could draw from that question was his intention to remove supplementary benefit. That is what the Financial Times says he meant, and that is what I believe he meant. [Interruption.]
I understand the shame with which Conservative Members greet that proposition, but I assure them that it was the proposition of one of their Cabinet and I assure them that we shall want to know from the Chief Secretary tonight whether it was Government policy.
I am relieved, not to say delighted, that Conservative Members have reacted with such sensitivity to that latest and most brutal proposal. I am delighted that they are interested, particularly those who are from time to time inclined to parade their bleeding hearts whenever unemployment is mentioned. I recall vividly the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt)—not now, I think, in his place—two weeks ago speaking movingly of the unemployed coming to his surgery and saying that they did not vote for him to obtain that result. They will correct that error next time. I think movingly, too, about such Conservative Members as the right hon. Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), and the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and for Stafford who were willing enough yesterday and the day before to sign an early-day motion, willing enough to take part in a rebellion under pressure from parents of the prosperous young people of the suburban areas of Britain, and willing enough to stand up for the urban middle classes and the grants that their sons and daughters should receive, but who have not rebelled on the subject about which they talk so much—unemployment in Britain.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I say this to them. Their reputation for humanity and compassion—that goes for the king wet, the Secretary of State for Energy—is eroded every time they vote for the Government on the strategy which the Government now adopt. Not until they begin to rebel on unemployment shall we treat them seriously or treat them with respect. Until they vote against the Government, no matter what they say, write in The Guardian or say in the presence of a selective audience of conservative liberals, they will be supporting a Government who, despite all their protestations, adopt the high unemployment policy. We shall vote against that tonight and if they had any shame, they would do the same.
5.57 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: I am grateful for the kind remarks which were made both by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. I am glad that it has been possible for the Committee to produce that report before the debate. That required a considerable effort and I want to pay tribute to the hard work that has been done by my colleagues on the Committee and by the clerks and the staff of that

539
Committee. To have before the House an analysis of what is in the autumn statement improves the quality of our debate.
In that context, may I first say a word or two about procedure for the main debates during the year? It is true that we normally have this debate on the autumn statement, followed later, usually early in the new year, by a debate on the White Paper on which the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee also reports, and then a debate on the Budget in the latter part of the spring. Those are the three main debates on which the Committee bases its work in the course of the annual cycle.
The arrangement for the debates on the autumn statement and Budget is a good one. However, I am bound to say that I have rather more doubt now about whether the debate on the public expenditure White Paper comes at the right time. I have a feeling that the debate, over the years, has never been a tremendous success. It often comes too close to the budget itself. We might do better to have a debate on public expenditure in, say, late June or early July, when the House would have an influence on the forthcoming round of public expenditure decisions within the Government.
In the course of some of the controversies of the past few days, there has been a strong feeling that taxation and public expenditure ought to be considered together. Indeed, that is implicit in much that was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook a moment ago. That was one of the recommendations of the so-called Armstrong committee report, but the Armstrong committee also stressed the importance of having a green Budget in the autumn so that the House could have an opportunity of discussing not only the main part of the autumn statement—public expenditure—but also the provisional proposals of the Government for taxation. A final decision could then be made by the Government at normal Budget time.
I am worried about the fact that, instead of setting up some formal arrangement of that kind, which would be of immense advantage, we seem to be sliding into a situation where many aspects of taxation are debated because of leaks or rumours on particular tax changes. That is not a good arrangement. It is no substitute for a proper green Budget.
There may be a strong argument for transferring the burden of taxation from direct to indirect taxes, especially if one alters the rates of tax in the traditional way by putting more on beer, cigarettes or tobacco or perhaps even on the standard rate of value added tax. However, what worries me is that in the past few weeks there has been a series of rumours about tax changes which the Government then say they cannot deny. One often gains the impression that the rumours may have arisen from informal discussions with Treasury Ministers and others. That is a bad arrangement. The rumours have concerned VAT on books, newspapers and children's shoes, and the taxation of lump sum pensions, among other things.
There may be a case for changing the balance between indirect and direct taxation, as far as rates of tax are concerned. However, we must look carefully at any proposal—and certainly any range of proposals—which would extend the frontiers of indirect taxation beyond the area where the House has decided over many years that the line should be drawn.
540
There is a case for a green Budget. I do not like the constant circulation of rumours at the present time, and it would be worrying if there were any truth in the rumours that indirect taxation is to be extended into areas that the House has decided, with good reason, it should not affect.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Higgins: No, Sir. I am frightfully sorry, but I understand that Privy Councillors must not take up too much time, so I should like to pursue my own line of argument.
At Question Time today, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of raising the income tax thresholds. However, it would be a mistake to suppose that one could do that on a sufficient scale to make a serious impact on the poverty trap or the "Why work?" problem. I believe that we should be moving towards a system of tax credits. Such a system might take many years to implement and fully to finance. However, it would provide a permanent solution to the problems, and that would be better than attempting to ameliorate them occasionally, or year after year, by raising the tax thresholds.
The main part of the autumn statement is dealt with in the report of the Treasury Select Committee. The central argument on which we have concentrated this year is the question of public expenditure priorities. We expressed our increasing concern that the mechanism for determining public spending priorities, which produces the result in the autumn statement, is not working as well as it should. The events of the past few days in relation to overseas aid and student grants and parental contributions seem to confirm our view.
We drew attention to the considerable danger that bilateral negotiations between the Chief Secretary and the spending Ministers may not take fully into account the true picture across all the Departments. We stressed the fact that we took evidence from officials and from the Chancellor himself. My right hon. Friend was inclined to resort to homely analogies—as he did this afternoon—and ask members of the Committee how they reached private expenditure decisions. I am somewhat suspicious of such simple analogies, but I too will resort to one in a moment or two.
What is very worrying indeed — I commend hon. Members to the relevant section of the report—is the way in which some Ministers seem to have taken the view that if they have a certain amount to spend and if there is then a cut across the board in all Departments, that must be the limit on the amount that they can spend on the Department, even though there may be a very strong case for increasing each of the items in the Department's budget. That is a very difficult matter for some Departments with very small programmes. The Foreign Office and the Department of Education and Science are classic cases. If they have to make cuts, they feel that they must do so across the board. The Foreign Secretary, for instance, may feel that he has to cut not only overseas aid but the BBC's overseas broadcasts, the diplomatic service and the British Council, when the right answer should have been that if he needed to spend more, not less, on those areas, the savings should have been found in some other Department. But it is clear that that is not the way in which matters are being handled, and that priorities are being allocated in a very dangerous way.

541
The statement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science yesterday was another classic case. I believe that his original proposal was wrong. It had grievous disadvantages. The House knows all about them. However, I do not share the reaction of some of my colleagues to the package announced yesterday. In some ways, that package was even worse than the original proposal. I do not say that it was absolutely worse, but it was certainly not as good as one could have done in the circumstances, because the Secretary of State believed that he had to find within his own Department the savings that he felt ought to be made.
In answer to a question yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
"I should not like the House to get the wrong impression about the diminution of the money that might have to be made in the allocation to the adult education programme. As far as we can tell, it will be about £100,000 a year."—[Official Report, 5 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 366.]
When a spending Minister feels obliged to make adjustments affecting an area of public expenditure about which many people feel strongly, but announces that he is going to cut £100,000 a year, the matter is getting totally out of proportion. To coin a phrase, one might say that the Government's policy is to make a banana skin out of every candle end.
As I said, I do not like the idea of homely analogies, but I take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My right hon. Friend suggests that we should consider what an individual does. Let us do so. If someone has to buy a new pair of trousers, he does not say to himself, "This is a special spending department; I shall have to cut back on my spending on socks." He might have to consider the jewellery department and say that, if he spent a little less on jewellery, he could spend rather more on trousers and socks. But that is not happening, and at least two departmental Ministers feel that they have to make savings in the same Department. Neither economic nor political priorities are being made on a sensible basis. That is why we clearly recommend that there should be a reappraisal of machinery for determining public expenditure priorities, with special reference to the need to improve the allocation between Departments and a more open discussion of the best machinery for achieving it.
I am mindful of your remarks about being brief, Mr. Speaker, so I shall cover just two other matters. The motion refers to keeping plans for spending in line with what was said last year. Our report makes it quite clear that the relevant measures is not whether expenditure is kept in line with plans but whether plans are kept in line with out turn or, more accurately, whether out turn is kept in line with plans. There are serious problems in that regard.
We are also deeply worried about there seeming to be systematic distortions in the planning total. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to two—debt interest and asset sales. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's view has been, and remains, in conflict with that of the Chancellor. It is not sensible to say that proceeds from privatisation should be treated as a reduction in public expenditure. They could conceivably be treated as revenue or, as the Select Committee would prefer, as a means of financing the public sector borrowing requirement—otherwise, they give a false impression of the extent to which the Chancellor has succeeded in
542
controlling public expenditure. That is true in several other respects with which I shall not burden the House, but I commend our report to it.
A false impression of what is happening has been given. That brings me to the PSBR. We have to look carefully at the definitions if we are to get a clear idea about what is really happening. The Chancellor is in a better position to express his view on that than am I, but I do not think that it is badly out of line at the moment. Having looked at the forecasts that we have published and selected and those which the Chancellor has published, it is probably true that the autumn statement is rather more reflationary than the Chancellor seems willing to admit. Within the limits in which I am speaking, that is welcome.
I am more worried about the statement on the so-called fiscal adjustment. The Select Committee draws attention to the fact that, in contrast with last year, when circumstances were not vastly different, we have had statements from Treasury Ministers which clearly hold out the hope of some tax reductions in the next main Budget, to the extent of £1·5 billion. The reality, however, is that that is extremely vulnerable to changes in the exchange rate. If, by the next Budget, the exchange rate goes back to where it was at the time of the last Budget, there will be no scope for fiscal adjustment. We have to live with that. It is a new situation which arises because the exchange rate is related to the oil price, although not entirely because the oil price might change. That in turn affects revenue from North sea oil receipts. It is somewhat dangerous to predicate tax changes, which necessarily will be permanent or semi-permanent, on the basis of such good fortune, which can easily be reversed. We must take that into account.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to the effect of the American deficit. In that respect we are in danger. He referred to a balance of payments deficit, as opposed to a budgetary deficit, of about £100 billion a year in the United States. That is being financed largely as a result of the big American budget deficit, extremely high interest rates and their effect on the American dollar exchange rate which, in turn, has a repercussion on the balance of payments. That is financed by a big inflow of funds from overseas.
I do not believe that we or the Americans can assume that that inflow of funds—whether it is desirable or undesirable is another matter—will go on indefinitely. If those funds suddenly stop flowing in, everyone will decide that that is the time to get out and we shall end up with what I understand current American jargon terms a "hard landing". The implications of that, and possibly much higher interest rates to prevent the exchange rate falling, for South America and the entire financial structure are extremely dangerous. I am not yet convinced that the world community, the Chancellor or his opposite numbers in America have given sufficient attention to that problem. It is potentially very dangerous.
The dilemma is that even if the Americans take steps to reduce the budget deficit in an attempt to achieve a soft landing, we might still find that they create the same situation. I do not find that good for unemployment or any other problem. I merely raise it because the House ought to turn its attention to it, once it has dealt with the important issues that are raised in the Chancellor's statement and the Select Committee's report.
6.15 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Like many others, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and his Committee for producing a report, this time only just in time for us to Use it during the important debate following the autumn statement. It clarifies the issues rather better than does the autumn statement. I agree with many of its conclusions and its lay out is wholly commendable.
Issues arising out of priorities are dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 14 of the Select Committee's report. The reappraisal of the machinery is important. The right hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues are a little optimistic about how far we can go in that direction. I would try to achieve something much more modest. The matter has become extremely topical because of the overseas aid fiasco and the parental contribution to student grants. We can learn from the manner in which the Secretary of State for Education and Science had to come back to the House and change his course of action. There are lessons to be learned also from the way in which he had to make decisions that were based not on what his colleagues might have considered right but on the limited resources of political opinion that he was able to bring to bear.
The matter raises the issue of how Governments relate expenditure to resources. They do so in one of two ways. Either they make a total of their favoured and necessary programmes and realise that they demand a certain growth rate which they hope can be achieved, or they rely on the Treasury. The Treasury has a solution that is born out of sad experience over the years. We are fully familiar with the optimism of Ministers about the growth of resources. Their natural reaction is to oppose expenditure knowing that others will wish to overcome their restraint. They therefore stand there like executioners awaiting their call.
Neither of those methods is right. Neither undue optimism nor indiscriminate opposition to expenditure is the right approach to public expenditure. The basis of parliamentary control of spending used to rest on Members of Parliament carrying the dual responsibility for taxation, which was bad, and expenditure, which was good. In practice, those choices never come together in time. They are debated separately and any Member of Parliament can favour general economy and particular expenditure.
The problem is how we establish our priorities. Priorities are at the heart of any rational examination of public expenditure. The star chamber is not the way to handle these matters. Either there will be a preponderance of spending Ministers who are involved in the matters they discuss and are prejudiced, or there will be Ministers who are not involved and do not have the stomach for the blood-letting and butchery that is required. Because of the nature of this process, we have to look for other ways. We know that these matters come into Cabinet, where perhaps a Minister's future is at risk. Issues are fought out there, largely on the basis of the power, strength and persuasiveness of the Ministers concerned, rather than on the strength of the case that they are able to make.
Because of the unsatisfactory nature of this process, which has been with us for so long, many of us hope that there may be some role for Parliament, through the Select Committee system, to do some of the work, which would be a slight improvement. This will not happen by opposing spending programmes. No group of people responsible in
544
public will deny the advantage of certain programmes, as the Chief Secretary will know. Instead, we can have a better way, in which competitive bidding brings together the various pressure groups. It is astonishing how slowly the pressure groups have come to realise the importance of placing their case before the Select Committees.
It may be that through better discussion and greater involvement, we shall get solutions rather better than the one that we had this week in the case of university fees for students with better-off parents. It is better to establish priorities through pressure groups and Select Committees, which are then sifted by those who understand the political pressure — Members of Parliament — than to have Ministers coming to conclusions based on inadequate political feeling. If there is to be a fight over expenditure of public money, it is better to have onlookers there to see fair play. That is what happens in the end. At the moment, particularly with the size of the Government's majority, these matters come back to the House and the Government then find themselves faced with difficulties such as those that we saw this week.
I have been interested most in the role of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Did he come before the star chamber to put this matter, or did he go to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and say, "I believe that we should have cuts and I agree with them. This is what the Cabinet has decided and I shall put forward this cut as my offering to the Chief Secretary."? As I understand these matters, it would be astonishing if the Chief Secretary turned him down. The Chief Secretary rarely gets offers such as that. He has so many other problems that he will just say, "Thank you very much." Privately, he may question the judgment, but he has so many other problems on his mind that he will just think that that is one less. Therefore, the issue will not go before the star chamber or the Cabinet. Matters as important as this, or even more important, can be dealt with in this way.
I am saddened because the humiliation that a Minister may suffer is unnecessary. Other ways can be found to notify those concerned about possible proposals so that they can bring to bear the accumulated wisdom and judgment of far more people than the individual Minister who suffers some setback, as happened on this occasion. There are then the consequences of agonising over £10 million out of £132,000 million. I am the last person to diminish the value of £10 million, but nevertheless, out of £132,000 million, this matter could have been solved more readily and easily and with greater co-operation all round than it was.
My next point is covered by paragraphs 49 to 53 of the Select Committee report. It is handy to deal with the report rather than the autumn statement because the report has a more logical form. I offer that advice to the Chief Secretary. Here, we are dealing with nationalised industries, but the Government have not got it right. They have never had it right. They want to interfere, often for good reasons, but they do not want to appear to be interfering. They want the best of both worlds — to control the nationalised industries, but not to appear to be controlling them.
At the heart of the problem of the nationalised industries is the basic pretence that the Government do not interfere with them and so are not answerable to the House of Commons on their operation. This is convenient because it allows the Government to avoid answering difficult questions as to what they are up to with the

545
nationalised industries. If they want an industry to make a special concession of one kind or another, perhaps for a certain type of consumer or to a certain part of the country, it is much more convenient to pretend that all this has nothing to do with the Government but is the result of commercial considerations. Meanwhile, the arm-twisting goes on. We need a better way to explain the conflicting arguments and emphasise the commercial requirements.
The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, is also concerned about the efficient use of resources, and as such it is a valuable ally to such bodies as share the same objectives. This should embrace both the Government and the nationalised industries. In reality, as we know, the nationalised industries are suspicious of the Public Accounts Committee because they want to be free to act commercially and do not fancy the idea of being questioned by a Select Committee. On the other hand, the Government want to ensure commercial efficiency but want to be free to take non-commercial decisions. Therefore, there is the basis of the deal here. The nationalised industries would he happy if they thought that the PAC would not be harassing them or pillorying them. Therefore, we need to show the way in which the Committee works, and we have to explain to them the kind of Committee that it is, and that it is composed of people who are interested in getting value for money.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward this argument, would he advocate to the Government that we have a debate on the report of the Public Accounts Committee into the De Lorean affair and the waste of £85 million of public money?
Mr. Sheldon: I would be delighted to do so, and I hope that such a debate will take place, but that is another matter, which we are pursuing in other quarters.
We have the basis of a deal if we can show the nationalised industries that we can look at these matters in a commercial way, and show the Government that we can help to distinguish the commercial and political requirements. By doing this, we can help to achieve a greater recognition of commercial requirements — the very matter that should be at the centre of the Government's aims. We can help the Government to obtain more of an arm's-length relationship. If there are political necessities dictating another course of action, these will need to be paid for, on the lines of the commuters and British Rail.
The burden of proof should lie on those who do not wish to see Parliament following public money. What is required is a body with understanding of both the commercial and political realities. The PAC consists of politicians with the strong desire to get £1 value for every £1 spent. That points the way to a greater role for the PAC.
I agree with the hon. Member for Worthing about taxation proposals. It is incumbent upon the Government to make clear what their various proposals are, so that we have before us something more than the cascade of rumour about books, lower taxes on income or whatever. Let me offer a bit of warning. In 1962, the higher rates of income tax were reduced under the surtax changes. In 1972, the higher rates of income tax were reduced under the unified tax rate and in 1979, the top rate was reduced to 60 per cent. The people who benefited had clamoured for it. They took it, and they did nothing for it.
I hope that the Chief Secretary will make it quite clear that after four years of these policies it is incumbent upon
546
the Government to say what they now expect from spending £1·5 million in this way rather than spending the money to reduce unemployment. We have seen one of the longest periods of a continuous economic policy that manifestly has not succeeded. We have had this large increase in unemployment based upon that very policy. After such a long and continuous period of economic decline, despite all the optimistic progress reports, we need only compare the crucial figures for output, employment, unemployment and prosperity—which is what economic management is about—to see that now is the time for a fresh look at some of the objectives set out in the rosy days of 1979.
6.30 pm
Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with a good deal of interest because he began today to retract some of his more reasonable and sensible speeches of recent weeks. He has been making speeches in which he warned his right hon. and hon. Friends that it was their promise in 1983 to make a spectacular improvement in the position of the unemployed which was not believed and which he thought played a major part in the Labour party losing the general election. The right hon. Gentleman also warned his right hon. and hon. Friends that they must not make the same mistake again. He pointed out that the problem was deep-rooted, if not almost intractable, and that they would lose their credibility if they pretended that there was an easy answer.
I agreed with those recent speeches by the right hon. Gentleman, and I was disappointed when he started today to retreat from that position. He hinted at massive increases in public spending. He said that it was wrong for my right hon. and hon. Friends to be considering tax cuts. However, immediately before that, he had begun to point out that, with our present tax thresholds and our present rates of tax, unless the thresholds were changed, a number of the unemployed would start to pay income tax.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, income tax is paid overwhelmingly by those paying at the basic rate, and it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Mrs. Wise, whom no one would ever accuse of being Right-wing Conservatives, who recognised the injustice of not raising the tax thresholds and that it was the low paid who would be hardest hit if they were not raised.
When Opposition Members talk about how they would spend the money saved by not cutting taxes, I hope that they will remember that they are proposing to penalise those at the bottom end of the incomes scale who start to pay tax at too high a rate on too low an income. Therefore, let us not talk about tax cuts as an easy option which we might or might not choose to implement. There have to be tax cuts—if by tax cuts we mean raising tax thresholds and reducing the burden on the low paid.
I had an example brought to my attention recently of a man who stood to lose money — because he lost rebates, he picked up tax and he lost certain benefits—if he got a pay increase of £10 a week. He was worse off with a pay increase of £10 than he would be if we did not change the tax system. That is why I urge those who talk about forgetting tax cuts to remember who are the principal beneficiaries of raising the thresholds.
Mr. David Winnick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the beneficiaries of

547
the tax cuts introduced by this Government in the main have been the most prosperous among us? What benefit is it to the low paid if they receive a very small reduction in their income tax liability when, as a result, there is a large increase in indirect taxation, which obviously affects the poorer elements more than those in other sections of the community?
Mr. Parkinson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and Mrs. Wise, both of whom made excellent speeches in the Committee on which I served explaining why the indexing of the tax thresholds and the raising of them was vital to the low paid. Unfortunately, I have not the time to develop that theme further.
I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the public expenditure White Paper and the Government's expenditure plans. Listening to some Opposition Members, I got the impression that the Government had not responded to problems, were not aware of the difficulties caused for the unemployed by high unemployment and had remained totally unresponsive and unheeding.
I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to study the White Paper. Built into next year's expenditure programme, public expenditure in respect of the construction industry is a sum in excess of £16,500 million. That is a huge amount of expenditure with one industry. The idea that the Government are not aware of the problems of the construction industry is not borne out by an examination of the White Paper.
Then we see the Government's expenditure on defence. More than £8·5 billion will be spent with the private engineering sector in the main on the procurement of arms supplies and weaponry and equipment for our forces. Again, a huge demand is being injected by the Government into the engineering sector.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Too much.
Mr. Parkinson: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is too much. But the Government are constantly criticised for not spending enough with the engineering and construction industries. I am glad to have his opinion that these sums are considerable.
More than £2,000 million will be spent next year on training programmes. That is a direct response to the problems of the young unemployed. It was Mrs. Shirley Williams who blew the gaff and said that when she was a member of the previous Labour Government she had never been able to raise money on that scale from the Treasury for training programmes, although the need was recognised then. The Government have responded to that need in a very substantial way.
In the industrial sphere, nearly £2,000 million will be spent next year on a variety of industrial supports, and those are different in content from the kind of industrial support that was being given when the Conservatives came to power, which in the main was funding the huge losses of a range of nationalised industries.
The public expenditure programme does not support the accusation made against the Government that they do not recognise the problems of British industry and have not responded to them. The public expenditure programme implies, however, that there is a limit to the amount of public expenditure that can be incurred before we begin to damage the private sector by pushing up interest rates.
548
I was interested to read the building industry's assessment of its prospects. It sees that the strongest growth in demand in the coming year will come from private sector expenditure on construction, which in itself is extremely interest-sensitive. I urge the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, in arguing that we should have massive increases in public expenditure, to recognise the impact which that will have on interest rates, which in turn will have an effect on private expenditure — an important component in the economy, although one would not guess that from listening to the debate so far.
The Government's critics claim that there is not sufficient demand in the economy and that it is the Government's responsibility to increase that demand. That is the basic criticism that comes at the Government from those who do not agree with their economic policies. An examination of the facts suggests that the cause of our problems is not shortage of demand. For example, the demand in the retail sector increased by just under £6 billion from the third quarter of 1983 to the third quarter of 1984. Over the same period, imports increased by £3·1 billion. In other words, the demand was there but British products were not meeting it. The demand was being met by products from overseas.
World trade last year increased by the staggering sum of $144 billion. There was increased world demand for expanding trade as well as an increase in internal trade. Our share of world trade is about 5 per cent.
I argue that the cause of our problems lies with our failure to supply the demand that exists and not with a shortage of demand. Injecting additional demand into the economy in the way suggested by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is merely a distraction. It is a cruel deception on the unemployed. The people know that there is no easy answer and we should not pretend that our difficulties can be resolved quite quickly by a simple injection of demand.
Why are we not meeting additional demand? That is the central problem that any Government must face. I visited Japan recently and I went to a motor company that I had not visited for six years. In those six years, which include the recession, the company increased its production of motor vehicles by nearly 900,000. That happens to be about the total of British motor production. The company is Japan's second largest motor manufacturer.
I asked the company's leading figures to explain the basic reason for the increased production. They explained that the company has not lost a day's production through strike action in the past 33 years; every British motor company has had a strike within the last six weeks. We have been volunteering to lose production and to fail to meet the demand for motor cars but our rivals are not wasting their time on that sort of divisive behaviour.
I asked the company's representatives about the strike that took place 33 years ago and the lessons to be drawn from it. The lessons were straightforward. It was explained that the company had lost production, the workers had lost wages and the company's rivals had stolen its market. At the end of the day the company had to start again with all the problems that it had had before and the additional ones that had been caused by quickly inflicting enormous damage on itself. The strike seems to be at the heart of our problems. We use stike action as a weapon of first resort while our opponents, or many of them, use the strike as the weapon of last resort.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That does not apply to all British industries.
Mr. Parkinson: It does not apply to every industry but it is very typical. The problem lies with our failure to meet demand and not with a shortage of demand.
Mr. Winterton: I am not having that.
Mr. Parkinson: I do not care whether my hon. Friend is or is not. We must concentrate on meeting the demand that exists. There is no shortage of demand, and the more we claim that there is and emphasise it the more we delude ourselves and run away from the central problem of determining how to improve our performance.
Mr. Jim Craigen: I, too, have been to Japan. I was struck by the way in which employers, trade unions and the Japanese Government get together to look after Japan.
Mr. Winterton: And to keep out all foreigners.
Mr. Parkinson: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) about the need for us to work together. That is why I happen to think that the miners' strike is a national disaster. At the end of the day, everyone connected with the mining industry will find himself in the position in which the Japanese motor car company found itself 33 years ago. No one can possibly gain from the miners' strike. It is a maniac's way of resolving differences. We inflict damage on ourselves and consequently benefit our rivals.
I am passionately convinced that unless we find a better way of working together we shall continue to have difficulties and troubles of our own making. I do not see the Government's move to spread ownership as an incidental approach. I do not expect us to be able to emulate the Japanese system of co-operation. We are not the same people and I would not wish us to be. However, we must find a similar answer. We must find a way of working together. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to say that in every instance where the Government have denationalised an industry, where relations are better and where the bridge between owner and worker has started to be built, industrial performance has improved out of all recognition. I do not regard the Government's push to spread ownership as an incidental part of their economic policy. I see the spread of ownership as the heart of their policies. We must build a bridge between those who work in businesses and those who own them. We must develop an identity of purpose.
Let us not waste our time thinking that fictitous or phoney amounts of additional demand will resolve the problem when they are pumped into the economy. The problem will be resolved only by better performance and that performance will come only when there is a change of attitude. I believe that the chance of that change taking place has been enhanced by the Government's determined efforts to spread ownership and to build the bridge of which I have spoken.
6.48 pm
Mr. Richard Wainwright: The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) has done the Government a great service by reminding them of the current upsurge of serious strikes in important manufacturing industries. By doing so he reminded them that since 1979 they have achieved no lasting structural change in the
550
complex framework that is used in determining income and rewards. Under the pressure of unemployment, whether created deliberately or not, there has been some respite from exaggerated pay claims and damaging industrial disputes, but the more the Chancellor of the Exchequer proclaims recovery the more shop stewards feel that it is time that they had a share of the rewards for their members. If the Government do not tackle that difficult problem they will be in great trouble, as Governments have been before, on pay.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has proved to be a most effective reformer of financial procedures in the House. He was correct and relevant when he reminded us today that at this time of the year we should be debating a green Budget involving both revenue and expenditure rather than just an autumn statement. I am worried that the Chancellor might get away with sheltering within the narrow confines of an autumn statement. There is no attempt to update the medium-term financial strategy, and the details of public expenditure changes are bald in the extreme. It is nothing more than a tatty progress report, which is scarcely worthy of our full attention.
This is particularly unfortunate this year, because it is acknowledged in most parts of the House, including the Government Benches, that the Chancellor is a sad man who has lost most of his faith. There are few sorrier figures than a notorious evangelist who in mid-campaign suddenly discovers that his faith has deserted him.
The Chancellor is a bold man and he has done his best. He tried hard in front of the Select Committee to show that although he has had to desert some shrines he has now found others at which to worship. That is not convincing. He has had to abandon the idea to which he clung so long and bravely, that by continued and relentless downward pressure on monetary aggregates and on public sector borrowing, unemployment would be automatically reduced. The revelation that this is not so naturally is a great disappointment to him and to those who thought like him.
It now appears that the Chancellor is increasingly turning his attention to target ranges for interest rates, in which he has become passionately interested, and to the various exchange rates for sterling. The Government will be in trouble unless the Chancellor tells us soon about his new guiding stars and how he intends to follow them.
Another article of the Chancellor's faith is the importance of a downturn in real wages. The Select Committee wanted to give him an opportunity to enlarge on his new doctrine that a downturn in the increase in real wages would have an effect on the rise in unemployment. He took refuge in saying that his chief economic adviser was busy studying the subject and that we may hear about it in the not too distant future. That is small consolation when the whole country is oppressed by ever-rising unemployment and when, despite the Chancellor's attempts to disguise it, the increases in employment are almost entirely among part-time women workers. Good luck to them—they are valuable—but that is no answer to the core problem of ever-rising unemployment. The Government have, in that and other ways, fiddled the official information about total employment.
I was interested in the exchanges about what was not very helpfully described as "income tax cuts", to which the right hon. Member for Hertsmere referred in a telling fashion. I was surprised when, in such a sweeping way, with no reservation, the right hon. Member for

551
Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) dismissed as a low priority the lifting of the income tax thresholds. At first I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about 2p off the basic rate or, worse, a reduction in the higher rate. If he had meant that I should have understood his sweeping manner. But when the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) urged the Chancellor to forget about any tax cuts and to put all his extra resources into capital projects, the hon. Gentleman was cheered by the Labour segment of the Opposition.
A delicate balance has to be struck, but it is odd, when income tax begins to bite on a married couple at a mere £60 of earnings a week, that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should be so dismissive of tax cuts through lifting the thresholds or making a major adjustment in the national insurance threshold. The latter might be a more cost-effective way of relieving the poor of paying for their own benefits. However, it would create frightful poverty traps further up the scale. I find the right hon. Gentleman's sweeping approach deplorable.
Dr. Bray: I also listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I understood that he was saying that any changes in income tax have a far smaller effect on unemployment than direct public expenditure. Any raising of the tax threshold can be balanced by increases in the higher rate of tax to ensure that the lower paid, but not the higher paid, are indexed.
Mr. Wainwright: I do not disagree with the words that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) uses, but he will be the first to agree that this was not the argument used by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, (Mr. Davis) will clarify the official Labour position.
I warmly endorse the suggestion that better information be placed in front of the Cabinet when public expenditure plans are prepared for the autumn statement. The Chancellor did his best to assure us that this is taken care of and that, up to the point where a political judgment has to be made, the present procedures fully cover the demands by reformers. He was not convincing because he is unable to claim that the original decision on the Foreign Office cut this year was agreed in detail in Cabinet. Everyone knows that it did not go to Cabinet originally. He was not able to claim that the original proposals by the Secretary of State for Education and Science for student grant cuts went to Cabinet. The House should consider how to better these procedures.
It is almost self-evident that most of the crucial domestic expenditures, especially those with large social repercussions, have heavy elements of overlap between one spending Department and others. These elements are so obvious that I should perhaps apologise for giving some instances to the House. For the record, I should like to mention the problem that most of us face at one time or another in our families — accommodation for elderly people. The provision of accommodation at the places where people are living—enabling them to stay in what they regard as their home—is a matter for the Minister for Housing and Construction, because it entails the construction of more sheltered housing and the provision of old people's housing schemes. But if it is believed that, to provide better care for those people, they should be
552
under closer medical supervision and should go into a type of elderly persons' communal accommodation, or even geriatric accommodation, that is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Security. Inland Revenue has an interest also, because the tax treatment of the elderly is highly relevant to this matter.
There is no evidence that such overlaps — hon. Members will know of dozens of examples of similar overlaps in important matters — are properly treated. When I served on the rather notorious Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which examined taxation and benefits, senior officials from the Treasury and DHSS admitted frankly that there was little mutual consultation about the interaction between taxation and social security benefits. For once, The Times was right in saying in its leading article on star chambers that the trouble with star chambers is that they have
"no basis of comparison of the economic or social merits of the output of different departments, because there is no part of government whose task it is to provide such an evaluation."
I believe that there should be machinery for carrying out that task. The star chamber method where matters are fought out among Ministers sitting in twos and threes, which sometimes ends with blood on the carpet, threatened resignations and all the rest of it, is no way to settle these important matters in an advanced country.
Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wainwright: This must be the last occasion on which I give way or I shall be in trouble with the Chair.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with the Liberal economic policy, which is all things to all men. The hon. Gentleman rightly attacked the iniquities of levying taxes on people who earn just £60 a week. How does the hon. Gentleman intend paying for the Liberal inflationary and reflationary policy programme—by higher taxes or high borrowing?
Mr. Wainwright: There is no secret about that. Three years ago, we published a compendious booklet called "Back to Work", which made it clear that, over three years, we wanted an approximate addition of £9 billion to the public sector borrowing requirment. That does not mean a crude £3 billion a year—it means building up the PSBR so that over three years there is an additional £9 billion.
I must record the alliance's bitter disappointment at the lack of reference in the autumn statement to unemployment measures. There was no mention of the task of matching the tens of thousands of people who could be employed with the public works crying out to be done. Worse still— I hope this point appeals to those hon. Members who are accountants — nothing in the document shows any Government awareness of their failure to keep up with depreciation and obsolescence of public assets. That criticism applies as much to Labour Administrations as to the Conservative Administration.
The public is painfully aware that the yearly depreciation of our public assets has not been attended to and that their conditions have become much worse. It is no answer to cut the external financing limits of important public services. I do not think that hon. Members have fully appreciated, for instance, the fact that the autumn statement shows that the return the Government expect from the water industry will almost double during the next three years. If we were to tell any business, however

553
brilliantly managed and successful, that the shareholders expect the return to be doubled within three years, we would be asking a great deal and would often—not always—be accused of greed and of asking for far too much. It is far too much to ask, for example, the water industry —whose assets are clearly clapped-out and which cannot deliver more than about 70 per cent. of the water gathered, into the pipes and bathrooms of the people who pay for it—to be used as an unofficial tax-gatherer. To ask such industries to be under-the-counter tax-gatherers when they are experiencing distressing physical conditions would be a breach of stewardship.
We on the alliance Benches have no time for this autumn statement. We do not believe that it is matched to the needs of the country. If it foreshadows the Budget we are to expect, the sooner the Government pack up, the better.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The 10 minute limit on speeches is now in operation. I appeal for the co-operation of hon. Members.
7.6 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: This debate, which seems to occur every year, gives us a useful opportunity to consider the development of the economy and to question some of the assumptions underlying the Treasury's forecasts. Clearly, the figures on the growth of output, the reduction in inflation, the recoveries in investment, profits and productivity and the buoyancy of exports are all on the positive side and are to be warmly welcomed. They are moves in the right direction.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said earlier, a number of serious worries remain — notably, the problem of mass unemployment with more than 3 million registered unemployed and the risk that the Treasury assumption on unemployment for the next two years or so may well turn out to be optimistic. Equally, there is obviously a clear connection with the difficulty of controlling public spending intelligently, as the Select Committee pointed out in its report, and there are worries about the shortcomings in the manner in which the Government address themselves to the ordering of priorities which is implicit in that public spending.
Without sufficient overall growth in the economy during the coming period, and bearing in mind the difficulties of controlling public spending in aggregate and disaggregate forms and the threat that unit costs may start to increase again with earnings beginning to take off in an alarming way, the prospects held out by the Chancellor for substantial fiscal relief or improved international competitiveness are not as good as some of us would wish.
Further recovery of output will be delayed as long as this dreadful miners' strike goes on. I strongly agree with the remarks by hon. Members about the need for Scargillism to be defeated in the interests of not only working miners but the entire economy. The inflation prospect could be prejudiced again by a substantial real increase in earnings and the possibility of a continued fall in the value of the pound in relation to other currencies. Investment recovery is vulnerable if profits are not sustained. Everything the Government can do must be done to expand the available market domestically and internationally and to ensure that we have realistic pay settlements.
The continued export recovery on which we heavily depend will require energetic efforts in the EEC and other
554
international gatherings to ensure that we tackle the issue of non-tariff barriers, which must still concern my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary, since he was formerly the Minister for Trade. But underlying all those problems is the very tricky nexus between productivity and unemployment. That seems to be the "Catch-22" of our economy at the moment.
I think that the whole House would agree that we need productivity increases at least as great as output increases if we are to remain competitive in a very tight world economy. But that inevitably will tend to increase unemployment, which in turn will increase public spending, which in turn will make it harder to boost the private sector with the lower taxes and lower borrowing that we should like to see.
On the other hand, if we were to go in the direction of the so-called alternative economic strategy espoused by Labour members we might see a decline in the rate of productivity increase over the years ahead, and perhaps unemployment falling for technical reasons as a result—but, of course, at a very great price in terms of diminished international competitiveness. If the Labour party were ever to come to power, it would be driven into a siege economy, whatever weasel words it might use in a future manifesto.
The only sensible choice for Britain is to work for a higher-output, higher-productivity economy and then to use a good part of the extra income and wealth so created to alleviate and help reduce unemployment, which is the principal adverse consequence not only of an economy in decline but also, paradoxically, of a successful economy that is experiencing a recovery based on high technology and strong competition from overseas. In these circumstances, it behoves us all to give some indication of what we think the Government should be doing in addition to the sound policies upon which their programme is already based. I have not the time this evening to go into the large range of micro-economic, supply-side policies that I and several of my hon. Friends favour in that regard. I am sure that there will be other opportunities in the House over the coming months to talk about that.
I should like to concentrate briefly on next year's Budget, since it seems to me that this is an opportune moment at which to put down a few markers about the things that many of us would like to see. I want to see that Budget framed with a top priority for employment creation in as many sensible and effective ways as we can possibly manage.
We should seriously consider reducing the non-pay costs of employing more workers, because these are now very significant. They are not necessarily as significant as wage costs, but they are a factor that was very much in mind when the EC Commission was writing its excellent report recently. We should do so by cutting the employers' national insurance contributions, possibly to 9 per cent.
Secondly, we should raise the lower earnings limit of national insurance contributions to £60 a week, which is only the sort of level at which most people enter income tax for the first time. That would help greatly to alleviate the problem about which many hon. Members have spoken—that of the low paid in work.
Thirdly, I should like to mention a longer term objective which could be started in the Budget and taken forward later. We need to synchronise national insurance rates with income tax rates as far as we can, and in doing so to raise the upper limit of national insurance

555
contributions. From the Treasury's point of view, that would have the desirable effect of bringing in some extra revenue which could be used partly to offset the costs of some of the other measures that I have mentioned.
My fourth point is not so much in the sphere of the Treasury, but it underlines the point that the Government as a whole must make a co-ordinated and trans-departmental response to deal with the problems of unemployment. We should put the enterprise allowance on a demand-led basis. It is very nearly there now, because the Government, under continual pressure from their Back Benchers, are responding positively. But we should make it a formal position in which anyone who could usefully take advantage of this excellent scheme should be able to do so with the minimum of delay. My only caveat is that those who are going into the scheme need to benefit from the best possible advice as to which sectors to go into and in what concentration. I have already had some rather awkward cases drawn to my attention. For example, in some parts of the country there may be more shoe repairers than can be justified by local market conditions. Clearly, a little steering and guidance are required.
Finally, I should like to see the community programme expanded. It is now helping about 126,000 people at a net cost of about £1,500 per place. That is a fairly cheap and effective way of assisting people, many of whom have previously been unemployed for a long time. If we can do that—and do it in a way that also injects a greater training element into the programme — we shall be serving those people as well as can possibly be expected in tight economic circumstances.
I realise that the overall scale of any economic stimulus which might be implied in my remarks is not all that significant in itself, but it might help to nudge the economy in the right direction in regard to job creation. Above all, it will make an important psychological contribution to the needs of the many people in Britain who may feel that they have been forgotten and that their interests are not uppermost in Ministers' minds. Therefore, I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer say this afternoon that the tackling of unemployment is a priority task of the Government.
I hope very much that whether my right hon. Friend does good by stealth, through something called fiscal drift, or whether he does good openly, which I should like to see him do, he will address himself principally to bringing forward an employment-creating Budget—and, indeed, a series of such Budgets for the rest of this Parliament.
7.16 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The debate on the autumn statement must be seen against the background of mass unemployment. I have a list of the constituencies where male unemployment is very high. In some places male unemployment is near to 40 per cent. In my own constituency in the west midlands it is 22·5 per cent. My constituency is not alone in the region in having such a large amount of joblessness, as the list shows. The latest overall figures show that in the west midlands the unemployment rate is 15·3 per cent., and that in my own travel-to-work area it is 17·4 per cent.
In looking through my files in preparing for today's debate, I saw from the lists that were sent from the
556
appropriate jobcentres that in March 1980, in my travel-to-work area, unemployment was 6·7 per cent., that in the west midlands it was 5·9 per cent., and that nationally at the same date it was 6 per cent. When the Government first took office, unemployment in the west midlands stood at 5·1 per cent.—the same in fact as in my own travel-to-work area.
On Tuesday evening there was what was described as a private meeting of Tory MPs upstairs, to deal with student grants and parental contributions. It seems that 250 Conservative members attended the meeting. It was apparently a very noisy meeting. From downstairs, I understand, one could hear the banging on desks. Whenever anyone criticised the Government, there was a loud cheer. The one or two brave spirits who stood up to defend the Government were apparently heard in total silence. If the same pressure were to be applied by Conservative MPs to their Government over unemployment—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is.
Mr. Winnick: —it would be interesting to see the result. Suppose that, at a meeting of about 250 Conservative MPs, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were told, "We shall not support your policies, which are causing unemployment and mass misery throughout the country. We shall not support you in the Chamber. We want a change of policy." I suggest that that type of pressure could well bring about a modification of economic and social policies, just as the meeting on Tuesday produced a statement yesterday from the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
There is an urgent need for investment in public services and facilities. That is the most important way to create jobs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in opening for the Opposition, spoke of the cuts in housing in the next financial year. There should be a substantial increase instead. There is certainly no justification for any cuts. Reference has been made to the letter sent to Members by the Building Employers Confederation which states that spending next year is likely to be between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. less than in the current year. The confederation also believes, with considerable justification, that public housing starts will be 14 per cent. down and private housing grants 17 per cent. lower and that there will be a 6 per cent. reduction in improvements to public sector housing stocks.
Since 1979–80, Government finance for public sector housing has decreased by about 60 per cent. in real terms. If there were an increase instead of a cut, two results would follow. First, many people in the dole queue could go back to work in the construction industry for which they were trained. Secondly, it would produce the improvements and building so urgently required in public sector housing in my constituency and in so many others. In my borough, no contracts at all have been entered into for council house building since 1979. Undertaking that urgently needed housing work would be a very effective way both of reducing unemployment and of providing urgently needed improvements and new housing.
As a result of changes made by the Treasury and the DHSS, some pensioners will lose £1 of their supplementary benefit heating addition. They are, of course, the poorest pensioners. If they were not, they

557
would not be receiving supplementary benefit in the first place. Yet, earlier this week, when British Telecom was sold off at £1·3 billion less than the market price, the financial institutions made enormous gains. The difference in the Government's treatment of the poorest and the most prosperous elements in society is highlighted by that comparison. There is no possible justification for taking £1 from people on very limited incomes who already suffer great hardship in trying to keep warm in winter.
The former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) argued in favour of tax cuts, but there is no purpose in cuts which in the main would benefit the well off if the result is an increase in indirect taxation, which bears most heavily on people with low incomes. I am extremely concerned about the possibility of VAT being imposed on certain zero-rated items such as children's footwear. The whole House should be extremely worried about that. If such items become subject to VAT, how long will it be before food is taxed as well?
I also strongly oppose the imposition of VAT on books, newspapers and periodicals. A tax on books is a tax on knowledge. There is no justification for that, and it should be resisted. As for newspapers and magazines, it is interesting to note that in 1977 the Royal Commission on the press recommended that any proposal to end zero-rating should be strongly opposed because of the harm that it would do. I understand that there is no pressure from the European Commission on the British Government to alter the zero-rating of newspapers. Moreover, if VAT were imposed on the cover price it would undoubtedly discriminate against papers for which one pays as opposed to the free newspaper.
Therefore, I agree with the industry that VAT on newpapers would raise issues far greater than purely economic considerations. As a Labour Member, I must concede that most national and provincial newspapers are not on our side—that perhaps is an understatement—but that does not alter the argument that the imposition of VAT would be a retrograde measure and should be strongly opposed.
As in all Budget and autumn statement debates, the Government have sought to minimise what they can do to end mass unemployment. They virtually wash their hands of the matter, saying that there is little that they can do, that it is not for the Government to act, and so on. We utterly reject such excuses. We believe that the unemployment created in the past five years has been principally due to the Government's economic and social policies. These policies are largely to blame for the misery of millions of families in this country. We know only too well what happens to people who, once made unemployed, cannot find alternative work.
I believe that our amendment is entirely justified. I only hope that Conservative Members who say that they are as concerned as we are about unemployment will have the courage to join us in the Division Lobby.
7.26 pm
Mr. John Townend: I have been a consistent supporter of the Government's original policy to reduce public spending. I have also been a consistent critic of their failure to achieve that objective. I was therefore greatly saddened by the change to the revised objective of containing public spending.
558
To achieve that revised objective, the Government set great store upon keeping the planning totals in line with the expenditure White Paper. Year by year, that involve increasing use of what we in the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service call "creative accounting". One of the most important aspects of this is that the budgeted amount for asset sales is increased, thus keeping the planning total in line. Cmnd. 879, published in 1983, shows a planning total for 1985–86 of £132 billion — exactly the same figure as this autumn statement. At that time, however, asset sales were budgeted at £500 million. They are now budgeted at £2·5 billion. The increase of £2 billion has all gone in increased departmental spending. So much for the Opposition's claims that the Government are viciously cutting spending.
The planning totals also do not include interest payments, which are rising this year and are due to rise by a further £1 billion next year. As I said in the debate on the autumn statement last year, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has my sympathy and support, year by year he is losing the battle with the spending Departments. The biggest culprit is the DHSS, which this year is spending £2 billion more than was scheduled in the 1983 White Paper. I welcome the setting up of the review boards but I am perturbed that a recent report suggests that Ministers have said that any savings achieved will be used to increase benefits rather than to reduce taxation for the low paid.
I am delighted that this year the Department will at last look at the appalling scandal of the board and lodging allowance. I hope that the Minister will be sufficiently severe to stop the financial incentives that encourage young people to leave the parental home. The cost of housing benefit, which doubled last year, has been greater than anyone anticipated. Many people in receipt of the benefit, which costs the country £2 billion, pay income tax.
We should also examine the amount paid in social security to striking miners and any other strikers. Is it right that taxpayers should subsidise people who are costing the country so much money? Should we pay social security to young people who turn down the chance of a place on the youth training scheme?
The current year's expenditure is running ahead of the budget by about £4·25 billion. About £2·75 billion will be met from the contingency reserve, leaving an outturn of £1·5 billion more than planned. We are told that it has been caused principally by the coal strike. Surely a contingency reserve is meant for unforeseen circumstances such as a coal strike. Based on this year's experience, was my right hon. Friend wise to reduce the contingency reserve in the autumn statement by £750 million?
All hon. Members accept that unemployment is the greatest problem facing our country. I do not believe that this terrible situation can be dealt with by increasing public spending. I agree with the Chancellor, who said to the Select Committee:
"The level of unemployment would have been improved if real wages had grown at a less rapid pace."
The experience of the United States during the past 10 years supports that view. Between 1975 and 1984, 14 million new jobs were created and real wages in manufacturing industry fell by 3·5 per cent. In the United Kingdom, even during the height of the recession, wages

559
continued to rise, —during the past 10 years they rose by 13 per cent. — and the number of jobs fell by 1 million.
In the autumn statement the Government seek to restrict pay increases for public sector workers next year by 3 per cent. If the Government are serious about letting market forces work in the labour market, as they do in the United States of America, and about removing rigidities in the market; they should take action. Some Select Committee members were disappointed when, in answer to a question, the Chancellor said that he and his colleagues
"spoke only in general terms about measures to reduce rigidities in the labour market and that no firm conclusion had been reached about these."
Is it not nonsense that, while the Government try to limit wage increases in the public sector to 3 per cent., employers of several million employees in the private sector must increase their wages year by year by more than the rate of inflation at the diktat of wages councils, which are set up under Government legislation? As the time is approaching when the Government, under their international obligations, can give notice to abolish the wages councils, they should give that notice as quickly as possible.
Further restrictions which affect the free operation of the labour market and which should be considered seriously include the national dock labour scheme. It has already destroyed Liverpool, is well on the way to destroying my home city of Hull as a port, and is doing its best to destroy Southampton. We must re-examine the Employment Protection Act 1975, which still puts the fear of God into many small employers. It is a disincentive to taking on more staff. The Government must examine the Equal Opportunities Commission, which is a bigger nonsense than before since the recent decision that a lady who works in the canteen should be paid the same rate as a skilled shipyard worker. We should look at the Commission for Racial Equality, the code of practice of which is full of bureaucratic nonsense.
Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is a nasty man.
Mr. Townend: My next remarks will sound even nastier. We can never consider unemployment without reminding Opposition Members that if the Labour Government had had stricter immigration controls we would not have the problems that we have today. In the south-east we have 250,000 foreign workers, mainly working in the catering, hotel and service industries. Why are those jobs not filled by our own unemployed people?
Ms. Short: Join the National Front.
Mr. Townend: The reason is that many young people are not prepared to accept the wages, terms and conditions for those jobs. Perhaps we pay them too well on social security, especially in areas such as the south-east, where jobs are available. The Government should consider dealing with this problem from the public expenditure point of view and with a view to getting people back to work.
There is a great deal that is encouraging in the autumn statement. Inflation is decreasing, productivity is increasing and the rate of growth is increasing for the fourth successive year. I plead with the Chancellor to open up the labour market, to remove the rigidities and to make
560
the mobility of labour possible by dealing with the Rent Acts. He should take out his knife and slit away the legislation and bureaucracy, which is killing jobs.
7.36 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen: If the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) sees anything encouraging in the autumn statement, he needs a pair of spectacles. He has not changed his penny-pinching ways since we served on the Select Committee on Employment. Some of the folk whose pay and benefits he wishes to cut would have been glad to receive the consultancy fees paid in connection with the sale of British Telecom. Massive public expenditure was devoted to that, but I shall come to that matter later.
The Chancellor referred to vision. He has no clear idea where the United Kingdom is going, far less any idea of the growing lack of social cohesion that accompanies his policies. The autumn statement is probably becoming more important than the budget in determining the living standards of the many people whom we represent. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, was right to talk about some of the problems that arise when one looks at matters in compartments. There is a growing body of opinion in the Conservative party about the cost of Trident and the extent to which that expensive project is pushing out other priorities within the defence budget, let alone extinguishing some valuable social projects and priorities.
It is outrageous that the housing benefit system was altered so that many young people were encouraged to leave home to get a better rate of benefit in a lodging house. The Secretary of State for Social Services is penny-pinching and wants to change the lodging house benefit arrangement to put the young people out on the street. The Minster should not underestimate the social problems that have emerged in our cities. There is growing homelessness and unemployment among young people, and there are more problems of drug addiction. We must address ourselves to those serious political issues.
It is all very well to look at one side of public expenditure and decide to cut housing benefit, but the present system is open-ended regarding income tax relief for home purchase. The Treasury effectively loses £3 billion through income tax relief. About £500 million goes to people who live in big houses and happen to pay the highest rates of income tax. There is no housing need relationship there; it is a house purchase relationship. That may well have to be looked at in terms of equity and parity of treatment.
The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) mentioned the construction industry when he was talking about the importance of the private sector. The turnover of many building firms depends upon public contracts. They are building, rehabilitating, maintaining and repairing properties, and the Minister should not overlook the interrelationship between the public and private sector. The one depends upon the other. I believe in successful private and successful public enterprise, but I object to the way in which the Chancellor's policies do down both. The Chancellor is shaking his head, but that is a fact. Many private companies have found it extremely difficult to maintain their profitability while he has been Chancellor.
Last night, my Scottish colleagues and I saw a lobby from the housing asssociations in Glasgow and the west

561
of Scotland, because the people involved in community-based housing associations are worried about what will happen with the lack of funding and resources to tackle the problem of sub-tolerable standards, let alone engage in the new build projects that we should like to see.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said that he hoped that the Chancellor's next Budget would create employment. We all hope that, but we did not see it in the previous Budget, far less in the autumn statement. It behoves the Chancellor to realise the implications of some of the decisions that are being taken in Departments.
Value added tax has been mentioned. The Chancellor is presently trawling the highways and byways seeking extra resources to pay for the own resources contribution to the EEC. The Government's approach is inconsistent. The Prime Minister asks manufacturers why they produce goods that people do not want. However, it would appear that we encourage agriculture within the European Community to produce what consumers are incapable of consuming at a great cost to national Treasuries because we have to pay vast amounts to store the produce and to keep the warehouses busy.
There is a suggestion that children's clothing and footwear are to be subjected to VAT. Local education authorities face problems at present. They have to hand out clothing grants to kids who cannot go to school because they are not properly attired. That is serious. I hope that that suggestion will be excluded from any trawling that the Chancellor is doing while looking for extra sources of indirect taxation.
When we talk about the spread of ownership, I hope that we realise the responsibility of management, because when public assets are being sold—often at a real loss —it is strange to think that one is bringing a few people into the ownership of assets that we all owned before they were floated off at public expense.
I wonder how much longer this country can afford the present Chancellor and his policies. We should be in "never-never land" were it not for the fact that we have singularly benefited from North sea oil and that the Chancellor is presently receiving some cash on the side from the sale of public assets. What will happen when the last drop of oil goes or when the last asset—the Crown jewels have not been sold yet—goes?
The Government have become corrupted by their own power. They have become oblivious to their mismanagement and the shortcomings of their policy. The sooner they change their ways, or better still go, the sooner this country will be better off.
7.45 pm
Mr. David Howell: We had a robust exposition of the Government's economic policy from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We also had an excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) in defence of Government policy, with most, if not all, of which I agree. The debate has brought out the point that the Government are facing two dangers—problems which they need to examine carefully to see how they can get round them if there is to be a successful development of the economic policy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is rightly trying to put forward.
The first of the two problems is the strategy of using tax cuts as a means of reducing unemployment. It is a
562
strategy in which I believe, but I do not think that it is getting across. It has not reached the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), nor do I think that it has reached a number of my hon. Friends. The difficulty is that we are dealing with a completely new labour market and entirely different conditions of unemployment from those of the 1930s. It is an unfamiliar idea to many people that jobs can be created through tax cuts. Hon. Members have almost expressed bewilderment, as if they thought that tax cuts and employment were alternatives. If hon. Members study the labour market as it is developing, with the new conditions that we face, they will see that tax reductions are the most effective engine of job creation.
The second problem is that the mechanism for settling public expenditure priorities appears to be in danger of falling into some disorder and decay. I do not have time within the 10-minute rule to discuss that at any great length, but in any case, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in his excellent chairmanship of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has made an excellent start, and the Committee has produced a good report which raises a number of questions.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing—I echo what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said—that there is no trouble-free or political agony-free method of settling the priorities for public expenditure between Departments or even between programmes within Departments. President Reagan, for one, is clearly finding that out now as he struggles with his budget deficit.
But I should like to think that the battle could be more between policies and less between Departments. For what it is worth, the intention of those of us who drafted the White Paper setting up the Central Policy Review Staff in 1970 was to create a mechanism which would not solve the political problems but would at least set out the choices between policies rather more clearly for central Departments and the Prime Minister than in the past. It was not our intention that the CPRS should become a think tank. It did, however, first become labelled that and then became the Think Tank. But we saw it as a mechanism precisely for trying to set out some of the expenditure choices across Departments rather more effectively than had been the case.
We are now being corralled into a greater emphasis on the famous bilaterals between Departments, and those plainly lead to dangers. It may not necessarily be right that if a Department's expenditure on one programme increases another of its programmes should be cut.
That may be Treasury logic, and a rather effective way of bringing down our bloated public spending. It has been used over the years but it is not the pattern of real life and it leads to the difficulties that we have experienced recently.
I turn now to the prime issue, around which much of the debate has revolved: tax cuts versus spending. I hope that we can put aside the question of who believes or does not believe in the importance of reducing unemployment. There is an overwhelming commitment by responsible persons in public affairs to the reduction of unemployment. The issue is how effectively and speedily it can be brought about. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook put forward a thesis in which he clearly believes: that there is a choice between tax cuts and unemployment. I believe that to be a completely false choice.

563
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a number of economic models which have clearly influenced him. He has obviously been talking in detail to economists. If he is interested in economic models, there are plenty of economic models which put the opposite view with great vigour. I commend them to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook if he wants to get a better grip on views about economic policy. The Liverpool economic models—Professor Minford's group—argue that for every £100 million used in tax cuts, 10,000 jobs would be created, or that for every £1 billion used in tax cuts 10 times that number of jobs would be created. He says that 5,000 jobs would be created by cutting the standard rate of income tax and that 8,000 jobs would be created by cutting the national insurance contribution.
The Warwick institute of employment research says that £1 billion in tax cuts would produce 203,000 jobs after four years, whereas it argues that if one is dealing with increases in public expenditure the figures would be very much smaller.
There is another argument which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook ought to take on board. When he says that increases in public expenditure are the way by which to create jobs he is not reflecting the proper range of economic thinking. He ought to understand that the modern labour market is quite different from anything that we have had in the past. It is not comparable with the 1930s. We ought to realise that tax reductions and reductions in the NIC are a powerful engine of job creation.
I do not rule out the suggestion that there should be increased capital spending by the Government, but I do not believe that that will be the main engine of job creation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not understood the nature of the modern construction industry and its very limited job creation capacities. Certainly, a great deal needs to be done for the infrastructure of this country, for a number of social reasons. By far the best report on the subject has been published by the Policy Studies Institute. It is entitled "Building the Infrastructure". I must declare an interest because I am involved with the Policy Studies Institute. It says in its report that it looks forward to a 10 year spending programme of about £3·3 billion on the infrastructure—£330 million a year. It says that the public spending element—the pump priming element via the urban programme—would need to be only one third and that the other two thirds each year of the £330 million could be induced from the private sector. The Government should include that point in their thinking.
As for the scope of the tax cuts, which are the real engine of job creation and the quickest and most effective way to restore the kind of employment in the new job market which is emerging—in particular the far better range of part-time and flexi-time employment that people are demanding nowadays—room is available not only from the £1·5 billion about which my right hon. Friend has spoken. He has more room than that. I suspect that there will be some easing room from the revenues from dollar oil prices, although I realise that that is a gamble. But I question whether adherence next year to the £7 billion PSBR is necessary.
The financial markets are not interested in precise Pstatistical figures each year. They are interested in being assured that in the medium term, over four or five years,
564
financial, monetary and fiscal policies will coincide and be in harmony. If the financial markets saw that the Chancellor was accelerating his tax cuts and bringing forward £1 billion next year on top of the £1·5 billion, with the aim of getting on top of job creation, as I know it would do, I do not believe that the financial markets would worry about it or put him under any pressure about interest rates. So a £2·5 billion move in the Budget next spring would be a good start to the tax-cutting, job-creating strategy which is necessary to create the new jobs which are being demanded in the wholly different conditions we now face. The old labour market of the past no longer exists. I beg hon. Members opposite to understand that we are facing new conditions.
What incentives should take priority within the £2·5 billion? Good arguments have been put forward about the need for tax reductions on lower wages. I do not understand why the Labour party wants to dissociate itself from the cause of lifting the intolerable tax burden on those first going into jobs who find that they pay immediately 39p in NIC and income tax out of the first pound that they earn. That cannot be right. We must have the support of a modern, understanding Labour party. It must not turn its face against those sort of tax cuts for people in lower income groups who are in real need.
The second kind of tax cuts that I wish to see are those which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned in his speech. I refer to the need for wider ownership. This is the theme which for 10 years some of us have been pleading for in the Conservative party. It is a theme which all politicians who are opposed to old-fashioned state Socialism should embrace. This is the path to more jobs, more employment and a fairer society than anything the welfare state has been able to develop. There ought to be a massive increase in the support of for wider personal ownership. I should like 1 million more council houses to be sold. I should like there to be more specific and positive tax incentives for share ownership, following the success of BT. I should like there to be far fewer barriers to setting up new businesses. This could be done. It would lead towards employment in a way that none of the proposals could achieve which have been put forward, in particular by members of the Labour party who keep looking back to the past. Labour Members must understand the nature of the new labour market and the fact that it is through tax deductions that we shall create the jobs that we need.
7.57 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, (Mr. Parkinson) will not find many people on the Labour side of the House who agree with them, either in their detail or their priorities. However, they recognise the problems that face this country and I am pleased that at least it is possible to have a serious debate with them about priorities, speed and the method of tackling unemployment. We recognise and welcome this commitment to tackling unemployment, even if we cannot agree entirely on the details. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will readily admit that that kind of recognition from him was totally lacking in the Chancellor's own speech.
The Chancellor does not recognise those problems. He lives in a different world. He referred to four years of steady economic growth. I do not know why he believes that. The claims which he made were not credible. He

565
claims that the Government have a firm grip on public expenditure. If a firm grip on public expenditure means such expenditure going up by £1·5 billion to £128 billion and increasing by 6·5 per cent. last year, is that really the firm grip that is needed? It is not even being held constant in real terms.
The Chancellor also spoke about inflation. He claimed that better progress had been made on inflation. However, table 1.3 on page 9 of his autumn statement shows that, except for housing, inflation is going up. It is only because of a radical drop in housing inflation that the Chancellor can show a constant inflation figure.
When the Select Committee tackled the Chancellor on this point and asked him what interest rate assumptions allowed him to show that housing inflation was corning rapidly down, he was unable to give us any evidence or facts. It is hope and assertion rather than anything else. The Chancellor is whistling in the dark to keep up his courage. Hon. Members on both sides of the House cannot believe what he says. Nor should they, because in the same debate last year the Chancellor said that unemployment was levelling off. That prediction was wrong. Many of the things that the Chancellor has said today are wrong. His track record is not good. The House ought to recognise that in the autumn statement the Chancellor has juggled with the figures to create the impression of a Chancellor in control of his own economic policy. But the real world is very different.
Let us look at some of the figures on the expenditure side. The right hon. Member for Guildford referred to a commitment to bring down unemployment, but in the autumn statement the Government accepted that unemployment will stay "stable" at 3 million. It is already at 3·25 million and shows no sign of coming down. If it is to stay stable at that level, the Government should have included an extra £370 million in their planning total.
The Government predict a 3 per cent. cut in local authority spending in real terms. No hon. Member can seriously believe that that will happen. Even if the Government achieve a freeze through their draconian targets and penalties, which is unlikely, they would still have to allow an extra £1,000 million in their planning total.
The Government say that public sector pay will be held to a 3 per cent. increase. Again, no one can seriously believe that. Most ridiculous of all, the Government assume that the miners' strike will be over by Christmas, in three weeks' time. No one believes that either.
The figures on the other side of the equation are equally unrealistic. An extra £500 million has been included for asset sales. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no evidence or statistics to the Select Committee to justify that assumption. Council house sales are assumed to be £400 million. The Chancellor was also unable to justify that figure to the Select Committee, and the 1983 sales figures were down by 35 per cent. It beggars belief how the Chancellor can assume another £400 million of receipts.
No one can believe the figures in the autumn statement and Conservative Members ought to recognise that they are phoney. The Select Committee refers to "systematic distortions" in the planning total. That is a polite way of saying that the Chancellor is misleading himself and the House on the contingency and the planning totals, both of which are inaccurate.
566
Not all the Chancellor's forecasts and assumptions will be wrong. Some will probably be correct, but it is undeniable that he will almost certainly be wrong on some. He has taken the most optimistic view of every fact. They will not coincide. The Chancellor is living in a fantasy world.
The Chancellor is especially living in a fantasy world over North sea oil. If there is one characteristic of the autumn statement, it is that it depends on the Chancellor's view of what will happen to the exchange rate and with North sea oil. He has included £2·5 billion extra revenue for this year. He assumes that the sterling-dollar exchange rate will remain at its present weak level. As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said in his excellent speech, that is a dangerous and unsafe—to say the least—approach. It is a complex and hazardous area in which to speculate and for our economic policy and the autumn statement to depend on the sterling-dollar exchange rate, particularly when the Government, on their own admission, have no target for that exchange rate, is an unsafe way of presenting the Government's economic strategy to the House and the outside world. I urge Conservative Members to look at the figures in the autumn statement and to recognise that they are being asked to accept figures that are, at best, highly optimistic, and often phoney.
If the Chancellor is satisfied with the figures, he is deluding himself. Different things are happening in the real world. Public borrowing and public spending are up. Government expenditure is up, because of increases in demand-led programmes, such as unemployment and housing benefits. Wages are running 3 or 4 per cent. above prices. The Chancellor's aspirations for parity between wages and prices will not be realised.
There are genuine demands, which the autumn statement does not face up to. Our infrastructure is collapsing and we have an older population and vastly increasing costs for the Health Service, social services, pensions and housing.
There is demand for more spending on skills, education and better services. Those are not selfish or fantasy demands. We must meet those demands if we are to respond to the challenges facing our industry.
Other problems are raised by the decline in our manufacturing industry. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere touched on that matter. The balance of trade in manufacturing has been sliding away from us in the past 18 months. The autumn statement does not address that fact.
Investment in infrastructure is inadequate and revenue from the North sea has peaked and will decline. The autumn statement does not face up to that problem. I beg Conservative Members to recognise the weakness of the autumn statement. When they see how unsafe and unsure it is, they will turn on the Chancellor and then it will be possible for us to have the necessary serious debate, which has begun in simple terms, on these matters.
Despite the fact that the Chancellor pretends that his figures add up and that he can produce a balanced autumn statement to the satisfaction of himself and other Ministers, our decline in manufacturing industry, skills and infrastructure is continuing. The Government are economically rudderless. I trust that Conservative Members will recognise that and will vote against the Government, if not tonight, at least later.
8.6 pm
Mr. Robert Harvey: The debate has reflected the fact that one of the main concerns of Conservative Members is not so much the general economic strategy enshrined in the autumn statement as the reluctance of the Government to accept and to give priority to what must be the most pressing issue in this Parliament.
The continued rise of unemployment after more than two years of recovery is alarming and it is no consolation that European countries suffer from the same ill. Of course the Government should continue to make balanced, stable economic growth their main goal and we should be proud of the reduction of inflation from 18 per cent. to less than 5 per cent. That is one of the greatest economic achievements of the past 20 years.
However, it would be an astonishing order of priorities if we made the reduction of inflation from 4·5 per cent. to zero our main priority for the next three years at a time when there are 3·25 million out of work and when more than 1 million people have been out of work for over a year.
Let us remember what government is for. Like all my hon. Friends, I believe that the less government, the better. Private enterprise should be left in peace to help to create wealth, but if greater wealth is created and a major group of people are being left without any share in that wealth, social tension will inevitably be generated as the lives of those people become pointless. It is the Government's duty to come up with an answer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given two reasons why unemployment has failed to fall. First, there are large numbers of working women joining the labour force. One can accept that. Secondly, the unions continue to price their members out of work. One can also accept that, although those of us who have long believed in pay restraint in the public sector, and have seen the Government come round to that principle, could have seen that problem coming.
However, both those factors are merely symptoms of the larger industrial revolution in working patterns which is staring us all in the face, but with which no political party has yet come to terms.
Is it not possible that the reason why unemployment keeps going up during a period of sustained economic recovery is that fewer jobs are required to create more wealth, as a result of the introduction of new technology?
Is it not possible that the reason so many more women and part-time workers are coming onto the labour market is because that is the kind of non-union labour that the new industries prefer to employ? Is it not possible that the reason earnings are up for those in work is that, because of the productivity improvements made possible by the new technology, employers can afford to pay more while employing fewer people?
In 1970 there were 6,000 general purpose computers in operation. By 1980 there were 175,000. By 1983 there were 750,000. The revolution in working patterns brought about by technological change is already upon us.
Ms. Clare Short rose—
Mr. Harvey: I would prefer not to give way because I have limited time. I am sorry.
568
In one industry after another throughout Britain, employers are working with more computers and fewer people. A local electricity board that serves my constituency employs 3,000 fewer people.
The country is looking to us to get to grips with the problem, but not by imitating an American example that cannot be repeated here. Jobs are being created in the United States, first, because a massive amount of enterprise capital was available to start up service businesses, and, secondly, because the Administration was prepared to run up a huge budget deficit. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was entirely right to argue that we cannot do that here because we are an open economy and budget deficits to stimulate demand merely lead to import binges.
But that is not an invitation to sit on our hands and do nothing. There is a need for a significant, responsible, job-creating, capital spending programme to improve our rundown services in the regions. We need hospitals, housing and schools which will provide employment for some of the unskilled and semi-skilled labour which otherwise faces a truly bleak future. That is not an import-intensive area and if the price is to push up inflation from 4 to 5 per cent., it is a price worth paying.
Secondly, because of the conservatism of institutional investors in Britain, the Government need to go further into the business of channelling risk capital to new and expanding enterprises. Thirdly, there is a need for large-scale, voluntary, early retirement schemes, conditional upon providing new jobs for those entering the labour market. There is also a need for the expansion of job-sharing, sabbaticals and shorter working hours for those who want them. The Government must give a lead.
The alternative is too terrible to contemplate. It is of a society where the employed, union-protected majority grow richer while life for the minority out of work remains idle and impoverished.
I was elected last year in a constituency where unemployment averages 18 per cent. and touches 40 per cent. in some pockets. A generation is facing the future, and what ought to be the bright adventure of their lives, without hope, without a choice in life and without the opportunity to better themselves, which is, after all, what the Conservative party is all about.
The great tradition of helping those who cannot help themselves, which underlines the British way of life, has averted social upheaval in the past. Let the new wealth that the new technology is bringing be of benefit to all the British people.
8.13 pm
Mr. Michael Hancock: Since coming to the House in June, I have hoped to see some spark from the Government that would lead me to believe that they had learned some of the lessons of the by-election in Portsmouth, South. I looked to the Queen's Speech in the hope that the programme that the Government were laying before the House would offer some semblance of hope to the British people. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that I was bitterly disappointed at what that speech contained.
I then looked to the next major platform — the Chancellor's autumn statement. Once again, sadly, having read it and witnessed two occasions on which the Chancellor has tried to justify it, I am amazed at the complacent and cynical way in which the Government

569
completely ignore the problems facing the British people. That is not a unique experience for me, because in the past 15 years I have sat on two Tory-controlled local authorities. Each year, at about this time, we have the preliminaries to the budget meeting in March. Each year, the Tory-controlled councils in Hampshire and Portsmouth would wheel out their political policy and budget, which would always have some element of doom in it and which would always be grasped by the majority of Back-Bench Tory members of those councils, and certainly the media.
Over the years I have begun to realise why that was done. I have begun to realise the purpose of a smokescreen—to divert attention from the issues facing those local authorities and people in the community. It was for no other reason than to hide the complete inadequacies of the main plank of what those councils were proposing to do. Now it is the Government's turn.
What we have witnessed in the Chancellor's autumn statement is surely not what was intended in 1982, when it was supposedly intended to bring before the House a full-scale green Budget as a preliminary to allowing the House to discuss the Government's programme for the next year. This is paying but lip service to that idea of 1982.
This year we have had a charade from the Chancellor. I can only suspect that there was some sort of conspiracy in the Cabinet, when Ministers discussed what they could slip in to cause such upheaval in Back-Bench ranks that it would create a smokescreen that would cover up the programme's inadequacies. They must have decided that the most acceptable face in the Cabinet to bear the brunt of a Back-Bench rebellion was the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the subject that would gain most support on the Back Benches in an attempt to divert media attention was student grants. What a neat ploy it was. Today is rather like after the Lord Mayor's show. After yesterday's back-tracking is the pay-off — the smokescreen being so effectively deployed.
But the real crux of what this Parliament should be about and what we should be saying today is contained on page 20 of the autumn statement. Listed there is point after point, which Labour and Conservative Members have tried to expose. They have tried to say that what the Chancellor is doing is not enough and, where he is making an attempt to offer some semblance of hope, he is doing so in the wrong place.
I come from a city with an appalling housing problem. The housing waiting list increases daily. At the same time the local authorities' housing programme and ability to do anything about it recedes. That is because the Government have reduced the authority's ability to spend and to deal with the real social problems of housing. The urban programme, once grasped by local authorities to offer some added incentive to their community, is, again, being reduced. Once again opportunities are being lost. Opportunities that were readily available only two or three years ago are now being reduced until they are virtually non-existent.
The real irony of what has happened over the past couple of days on education grants must be spelled out. The changes announced yesterday do nothing to counter the impression that the Government's education policy has no direction and no strategy other than to be penny-pinching. There is not the slightest spark of inspiration or imagination. One can offer some sympathy to those Ministers in the spending Departments who have
570
somebody breathing down their necks daily to remind them that the Chancellor is watching every move they make and reporting them back.
Despite the changes conceded by the Secretary of State yesterday, real hardship persists. Fifty thousand families must still find an extra £260 a year. The same number of students will be totally dependent on their parents. There will still be increases in the parental contribution, causing the burden of supporting the student to be shifted to the parent and away from the state. It seems that we expect those in higher education to be independent enough to vote and to fight for their country but not independent enough to make choices in education without their parents' consent, or to seek further education at all unless their parents are prepared to finance them.
The Conservative Back Benchers have been bought off at a high price. The budget for adult education, training and research has been cut, although those are the types of expenditure that we need to increase if we are to do anything about our economic decline.
Public expenditure plans allow for no priority to be given to training and retraining, yet all the evidence is that that is crucial to the nation. We should spend more on it. The engineering training board published a report last month which stated that there are many signs that skill shortages are becoming a serious impediment to national output. The report "Competence and Competition" reinforces that view.
The engineering training board showed that the demand for technicians in the engineering industry will be under-met by one third over the next few years, yet the spending plans take no account of the problems facing that industry—and that industry is not unique in today's economic climate. The money to buy off the Back Benchers was taken from the very areas on which we should be spending money. I have been a Member of this House only since last June, but I would have expected Conservative Members to see the folly of pursuing such a policy year in and year out.
Hon. Members have talked about tax cuts as a solution to unemployment. That suggestion has been made for three or four years, but the unemployment figures have continued to rise. Yet we are still persistently told by Conservative Members that tax cuts will rescue us from our unemployment mess. How long must we wait? How long must the list of the unemployed grow before we see some semblance of a return of those promises?
8.23 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: It is disappointing to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) who seems to be so disillusioned so early in his parliamentary career. It was even more disappointing to realise, as his speech progressed, that he seemed to have nothing to offer except a return to the old ways of spending, and borrowing and taxing, more. If he is searching for imaginative alternatives, it is not sufficient to criticise the autumn statement without explaining—as the SDP so often fails to do—what he himself would do instead.
I should like to refer to the international scene, which was touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who did the House a singular service by preparing the Select Committee report.

571
It is important for us to be aware that the Government's best hopes, in terms of budgetary expectations or fiscal plans, will inevitably depend on the world in which we live and with which we are increasingly interdependent. Having read some of the expectations set out in the autumn statement, I take the view that the waters will be rough in the world over the next year and that it is right to pursue a prudent course — such a course as is, broadly speaking, epitomised in the autumn statement.
Some of the world trends with which we shall have to cope give cause for concern. The United Kingdom's output has risen only half as much as that of other industrialised countries, while inflation is above average. In the United States, output is significantly above that of the average industrial country, while trends in capital investment, inflation and re-employment exceed those in this country.
At the same time, the most dramatic feature of the international economic scene is the record surplus that the Japanese economy is earning on its foreign balance of payments — £35 billion in the past year alone — compared with the record deficit by the United States of some $100 billion over the past year. Those massive movements of funds, and the trade that they imply, are to some extent areas of opportunity on which we are missing out. They reflect the still relatively poor level of productivity and competitiveness of British industry, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) commented so ably.
It is also a matter of great concern that the United States, which in terms of interest and currency dominates so much of the international trading scene, continues to maintain a federal deficit this year of around $167 billion. That, together with tight monetary control, means that the rest of the world is essentially financing the resurgence of the American economy. America is recovering at our expense and—as my hon. Friends are aware—at the expense of the developing countries which face problems with their foreign currency deficits because of the strength of the dollar, sluggish commodity prices and the burden of high interest rates. However, it is the continuing rapid development of the Pacific basin, with low actual and unit wage costs, lower real interest rates, and a surge in output, trade and investment, which provides the greatest challenge—and, I hope, opportunity—as we enter the new year.
It is important to bear those international factors in mind as we try to make value judgments about how we should spend our limited public resources on industry or on social requirements.
We must recognise the importance of keeping the new United States Administration to their undertakings on achieving lower deficits. We must also move, wherever possible, to strengthen the European Community as a trading and manufacturing bloc, by means of stability in exchange rates and industrial investment, and procurement strategies which direct fewer of our capital resources to the United States and the far east. We should remove internal Community barriers to capital investment and services. We must continue to uphold policies of free capital movements internationally. The substantial increase in the United Kingdom's net assets internationally, which has resulted from the release of exchange control some years ago has been vindicated by the enormous income that we
572
now receive—some £2 billion a year—in the form of dividends and interest from those investments. It has more than offset the enormous and tragic decline in the invisible income generated by our merchant shipping fleet, a decline of £1 billion on the level of three years ago.
The autumn statement is well set out, and a considerable improvement on the statements of previous years. I broadly support the overall level of spending for the next financial year and the intention to maintain that real level for the following two years. I am, however, concerned about the volume and nature of certain changes in spending plans since the White Paper. In particular, over £2·2 billion has been switched from some programmes to others, and much of that switch is from capital to current expenditure. For example, is it coincidence that cuts in spending on housing and roads amount to £680 billion whereas extra spending on the Department of Health and Social Security also amounts to £680 billion? One is a cut in capital expenditure, and the other an increase in current expenditure. That is difficult to justify. In my view, it is also difficult to justify spending on nationalised industries that amounts to over £1·3 billion in the next financial year when some £11 million—a relatively small sum—is being cut from the research budget of the universities. It is difficult to defend an increase of 21 per cent. in current expenditure by rate-capped local authorities when other local authorities will suffer significant cuts in support for essential and employment-promoting activities such as housebuilding and improvement and the maintenance of educational standards.
My greatest worry concerns the seeming inability to stem the ever-rising DHSS bill which now amounts to £56 billion or 42 per cent. of public expenditure. Why has it proved necessary to increase the provision of social security by £470 million when the Chancellor anticipates that the number of unemployed will remain roughly the same next year and when the rate of inflation, and therefore assumptions about the cost of increasing benefits, were no different when the last White Paper was written?
What has happened with the major review, which we discussed last year, on the future provision of social security? Can we sustain a social security bill of this size and satisfy ever-increasing expectations from benefits when we are cutting capital investment, spending oil revenue and selling off nationalised industries not to reinvest but to pay dole, supplementary benefits, pensioners and the rest?
The charges that we should be making are not those which are determined by immediate demands for larger handouts in Britain, but those determined by what is happening elsewhere in the world. We should be aware of and responding to the industrial challenge coming from the Pacific basin.
We should be rising to the competitive challenges coming from the United States and Europe in services and in manufacturing industry. We should be insuring against the day when the oil runs out. What will we say to pensioners and the unemployed then—that the money has run out because we have spent the seed corn? I believe that the Government are aware of these changes and of the course needed to avert them. This is the time to rise to those challenges. I hope that we shall have the conviction to do so.
8.31 pm
Ms. Clare Short: The complacency of the Chancellor's speech was quite shocking. It means either that he does not live in the real world or that we have two nations in Britain. Birmingham, which is the second city of Great Britain and the heartland of its manufacturing, has 30 per cent. registered unemployment in its inner core, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). When the Government came to power in 1979, unemployment was between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. All that deterioration and all the misery, suffering and poverty in Birmingham has come about since the Government came to power and is the result of their policies.
The hon. Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) suggested that our problem is new technology and that we are producing less because robots are taking over the jobs of people. That is not the problem. If we discount oil-related growth from our total economic growth, we find that we are producing less than in 1979. It is not true that we have applied new technology and are therefore producing more. We have thrown people out of work and closed down factories and are now undermining our economic base. When the oil runs out, we shall be in enormous trouble.
The suffering of the people of Birmingham is disastrous. We have the highest level of long-term unemployment in Britain. The only higher level is to be found in Northern Ireland. Until recently, our region was as prosperous as the south-east. We have the greatest concentration of poverty in the United Kingdom measured in terms of the poorest census enumeration districts. The people of Birmingham experience that suffering and worry about the economy because anyone who drives out of the city on major roads will see factory after factory, which used to employ people, closed and decimated.
We are told that Birmingham has benefited from the recent announcement on regional aid because we have been included in a second-tier authority for the first time. Birmingham is highly dissatisfied because the new travel-to-work area, which the Government are using as a building block of their regional policy, is so massive that it includes areas such as Stratford-on-Avon, which is highly prosperous, thus reducing the average level of unemployment in the region, which means that we are in the second rather than the first tier. There is also a grave danger that when new investment comes to the area as a result of the aid, it will go to areas such as Stratford-on-Avon and possibly make central Birmingham even more poverty-stricken.
Another feature of the Chancellor's speech which I found highly objectionable was the re-writing of the history of unemployment in Britain which he has pursued for some time. Every time he makes a speech on this subject he suggests that unemployment in post-war Britain has risen relentlessly under successive Governments and that therefore some radical measures must be taken to deal with it. The truth is very different. Until 1970, unemployment in Britain was either just below or just above 500,000. We then had the Tory Government of 1970 with the philosophy of Selsdon man—one might say, the first time round for monetarism—under which unemployment shot off to 1 million. We then had the famous U-turn because, in those days, 1 million was considered unacceptable. Unemployment came down
574
again to 500,000. We then had the Labour Government of 1974 and the first oil crisis. Unemployment rose to 1·7 million and then came down again, before Labour left office, to 1·3 million. That was the figure on the posters designed by Saatchi and Saatchi—
Mr. John Maples: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Short: No, I have only 10 minutes—saying, "Labour isn't working." The Conservative Government formed in 1979 inherited an unemployment level of 1·3 million and they have taken us from there to 4 million. That is not a long-term trend: the graph shoots up in 1979. It is false of the Chancellor to suggest that it is a long-term problem and that unemployent has risen steadily. The massive unemployment that we have experienced since 1979 is a straightforward product of Government policy. It is wrong that the Government should try to re-write history, appropriately enough in 1984.
Another feature of the Chancellor's speech which was highly misleading, is the claim that Britain is doing better than most other countries. To make that case, he uses figures selectively to compare the performance of the British economy with that of other European economies. Some of the most reliable figures by which we compare unemployment rates in different countries are assembled by the United States Bureau of Labour—hardly a Left-wing organisation. It is necessary to do major adjustments to compare unemployment rates in different countries because the figures are collected in different ways—sometimes by census and sometimes by registration. Those figures show that our unemployment is significantly higher than that of all of our competitor countries, and we started in 1979 from a lower base. We are doing worse than other countries. Our unemployment is worse as a direct result of Government policy.
Another feature of every statement that the Chancellor makes about unemployment, which is immediately echoed by his Back Benchers, is his argument that only a cut in wage levels will produce a drop in unemployment. We know a lot about that in the west midlands. In 1979, we were one of the highest-paid regions in the country. As a result of the collapse of manufacturing since 1979, we are now among the lowest paid, yet there is no sign of that massive cut in wage levels leading to any regeneration. Indeed, a recent survey of major economic investors made by West Midlands county council showed that they regarded the west midlands as a disastrous area for new investment because of the low level of economic activity in the region.
How low must wages fall to make Britain competitive? Should we go to the levels of Bangladesh or Korea? We already have lower wage levels than other major developed countries. Is there no minimum? Is there no decent standard minimum below which people should not be expected to work? It seems not. That is the only argument advanced by the Chancellor, but we know that, if all of us agreed tomorrow to take a wage cut, demand would be cut and there would be more unemployment. He may have other objectives, but it is not true that a cut in wages, which will not happen anyway, will produce the great solution to the problem of unemployment.
The Government are engaged in a mad economic experiment. As Galbraith said, Britain is doing its duty to the rest of the world by proving that monetarism does not

575
work. However, the price is unbearable for the people in the west midlands, who are suffering, and unbearably worrying when we think about the future of our country and our economy. The manufacturing capacity of Great Britain is being damaged and diminished, and nothing is being put in its place. New technology is not going in, and when the oil runs out, our economy will be damaged for ever more.
8.40 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: At the heart of the debate and of the economic statement itself are the issues of public expenditure, privatisation and unemployment. Public expenditure is the Sisyphean rock of any Government, and the severity of the task facing this Government is shown by the linguistic osmosis that appears to have coloured the verbs with which Ministers describe their task. First, we heard that Ministers were in the business of reducing public expenditure, then it was controlling, restraining or holding it, and now we are told that it is being contained.
Not enough tribute has been paid to this Government for their achievement. I do not share the scepticism and criticism shown by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends earlier today. To keep so close to targets set some time ago is a considerable achievement. To keep the public sector borrowing requirement in the same order of magnitude as pertained many years ago is in itself a considerable achievement. It is a remarkable achievement to have substantially lowered from over 9 per cent. to 3 per cent. the proportion of gross domestic product that is consumed by public borrowing.
It is inevitable that while the Government tackle the problem of public spending there has to be some of the trimming and shaving that has upset many of the interest groups over the past few years. Inevitably, as a result of that, there are adjustments, simply because of the nature of public spending, during the fiscal year, which again upset many of the interests groups particularly affected by such a change.
Ministers might assist themselves if they not only provided more information on the wider issues, of which Command 9189 is an excellent example, but if they publicised more of the existing anomalies, distortions and subsidies within the public expenditure programme. For example, it might have been useful to know before last week to what extent lower income groups subsidise university education for the middle income groups. It might have been helpful for the country as a whole to know the extent to which the north and the midlands, for example, subsidise commuting in the home counties. It has always amazed me that my constituents in Darlington have to subsidise, to the tune of £250 million a year, commuting in places such as Carshalton and Guildford, to name but two.
It would be helpful to know the extent of the subsidies within the tax system—for example, the extent to which companies that are exempt from paying VAT, such as publishing companies, are being subsidised by those companies that do pay VAT. Again, I am puzzled as to why an engineering company in Darlington has for so long been subsidising a publishing company in Bedford square, London. Ministers would help themselves and the wider
576
debate if they would make available even more information about some of the background to public expenditure.
As to privatisation and the sale of assets, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) has said, privatisation is important, not just in revenue and balance sheet terms—the technical matter referred to in the Select Committee report—but because it has much wider implications. The sale of BT shows the enormous opportunities that lie ahead, not simply for the privatisation of industry but for the privatisation of utilities, which would release customers who at the moment are subject to monopoly charging and to supply-fixed industries that could be profitable and attract funds on the capital markets. We could release them and for the first time give consumers some control in return for the standing charges that they have to pay and the amount of the services of the utility that they consume.
There are many such profitable public utilities—for example, Thames water authority. Individual gas boards or regional electricity boards may be more profitable than others. I see no reason why a nationwide programme has to be initiated. Where there are reasonably profitable regional utilities that could attract funds and finance their own borrowing and expenditure measures, my right hon. and hon. Friends must give them a chance to do so.
Unemployment has been discussed very much from the point of view of the employed. We have heard continually from Labour Members about wage cuts not being part of the solution. However, a Government who have done so much to free the economy, and the south and the midlands, must do much more to free the unemployed, and allow them to price themselves back into work. I should like to see my right hon. and hon. Friends increasingly co-ordinating a right-to-work campaign that will break monopoly power and end the wages enforced either by statute or by union diktat, and will dismantle the restrictive practices, the demarcation disputes, the excessive overtime — all the practices that maintain high unemployment and prevent those who are out of work from having the chance to put themselves into work.
In the north-east, far too many people are trapped on council estates in unemployment. They cannot take part-time work without losing benefit; they cannot leave their council houses, and they have no chance in the heavily unionised industries of putting themselves back to work. It is no accident that the north-east is the region with the highest unemployment, and is the region that is the most heavily unionised. Despite that, in 1984, as in 1974, as the new earnings survey has just revealed, it still has, outside London and the south-east, the highest average male weekly earnings of any region. As the manager of my unemployment office put it the other day, there is plenty of work about but very few jobs. That is a paradox for the House to understand and for Ministers to resolve urgently.
8.48 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) to talk about there being plenty of work but no jobs, when he has never been to Wales. I am the only Welsh speaker to have participated in the debate so far. We have a saying in Wales "Cymru-am-byth" which means "Wales for ever". In this Chamber, it means "Wales for ever last." In the autumn statement, references to Wales are for ever last.

577
I have listened to a number of speeches about the autumn statement since the debate started. I have listened to a number of my hon. Friends talk about unemployment and its problems. Unfortunately, nobody is talking about the real world in the area where I live. No one is talking about unemployment, at a level in Maesteg of 25 per cent. No one is talking about the miners' strike, which is far more important than some of the issues that I have heard raised today.
The autumn statement refers to an estimated contingency fund of £3 billion. If the miners' strike continues, that £3 billion will soon be wiped out. It is estimated that the strike has cost the nation between £8 billion and £10 billion in nine months. What action, if any, have the Government taken to try to get the two sides together and resolve it?
Earlier, I listened to one of the most atrocious speeches that I have heard in my five and a half years here. I refer to the disgraceful speech of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who is part of the black economy with his company directorships, his wine shops and his employment in the House. Is it any wonder that there is unemployment outside the House?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to spell out the policies of the next Labour Government. In a remarkable speech my right hon. Friend outlined the policies that a Labour Government will pursue when we get elected—and we shall be elected.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no wish to interrupt the debate, but there is a courtesy in the House that if an hon. Member mentions another hon. Member, especially discourteously, it is customary to give that hon. Member notice of his intention. Did the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) notify my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that he intended to refer to him?
Mr. Powell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are within nine minutes of the Front Bench speeches which will conclude the debate. The hon. Member for Bridlington left his seat almost immediately after concluding his speech, and we have not seen him since.
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Ogmore has not spoken before.
Mr. Powell: No, I have been waiting to be called, and I am the last hon. Member to speak from the Back Benches.
I refer to another Government supporter who is not here now. If he is not here, it is not up to me to tell him of my intention to refer to him. He has participated in the debate. I have been sitting here since 2.35 pm. I came into the Chamber immediately after prayers.
The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and his analysis of tax concessions at the expense of higher unemployment. However, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere overlooked my right hon. Friend's comment that the Labour party would not promise massive tax reliefs to get elected and would never implement such policies once it was elected to government. That is what my right hon. Friend said, and it is quite significant, because I believe sincerely that a Tory Government would not have been elected in 1979 if they had promised what
578
they intended to carry out. They promised massive tax concessions and we are still waiting for them five and a half years later.
I ask the House to consider the opportunities that could be afforded, especially in Wales, for building. In Wales we have some 40,000 unemployed construction workers. We are crying out for homes, hospitals, schools, sheltered accommodation, new roads, sewers, and more transport development. Instead, under the present Administration, we are getting further cuts, further unemployment and a display of indifference from them.
On page 20 of the autumn statement, against "Trade and Industry", we read:
"Additional provision is made for launch aid and for shipbuilding."
Recently I heard a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), winding up a debate on shipbuilding. That debate spelt out what the shipbuilding industry wanted.
On page 21 of the statement, under "Nationalised Industries", we read:
"This reflects a number of changes including the re-classification of London Regional Transport as a nationalised industry; decreased requirements for Electricity (England and Wales), British Shipbuilders,"
and so on.
Can the Chief Secretary explain the differences between pages 20 and 21? What does he promise for the shipbuilding industry?
Under the heading "Capital Expenditure" we see one of the rare occasions when Wales is mentioned in the autumn statement. It says that there will be a large overspend on cash limits in England and Wales, and local authorities will be asked for further restraint. How many more jobs does that mean that we shall lose in Wales?
I am concentrating my remarks on Wales because the unemployment level in some areas has escalated to as much as 30 and 35 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) nods her approval, because her area is suffering mass unemployment as a result of the suggested closure of a number of collieries. The same applies in Maesteg. I have in mind, for example, St. John's colliery. At present we have 24 per cent. unemployment. If that colliery closes and its 834 miners are thrown out of work, it means that male unemployment will escalate to between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent.
That is what the miners' strike is about. It is not about money. It is not about increases. It is not about percentage increases. It is about jobs. The miners know, as do their wives and children, that if they do not fight now to retain their collieries and jobs it is not only the present employees who will be out of work. It means that their sons and grandsons will be without work. But not only does it mean the loss of jobs. It means the loss of communities. I was born and bred in the Rhondda, the son of a miner. I shall be proud of being the son of a miner until my dying day.
Miners are a special breed to themselves and to their communities. Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Bridlington, should talk to them and discuss their difficulties and problems. The people in my community have a fight. They will fight to the end because they want to retain jobs. They want to do so for their communities, their sons and their grandsons. I have great pleasure in returning to my people on a Friday and leaving the motley crowd on the Conservative Benches so that I can mix with people of real standing and stature.
8.59 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I begin by referring to the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and the speech of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). It was unfortunate that the report was available to hon. Members only at 11 o'clock this morning. Therefore, it was not available for us to read, digest and consider it before the debate. I realise that the contents of the report must have been made available at an earlier stage to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he dealt in some detail with his views on the report's recommendations, especially the most important ones. The lack of availability to the Opposition has made it more difficult for us to comment on it.
Mr. Higgins: The Committee was working under the most tremendous pressure of time. There was a small interval between publication and the debate because of the pressure from the Opposition for the debate to take place as early as possible.
Mr. Davis: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take my remarks amiss. He is always free with his suggestions to the Government as well as the Opposition. I suggest that the Committee could have produced its report slightly earlier for the benefit of both sides of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman should not be so sensitive about a suggestion that has been made in such a modest way. The Committee did not meet until 19 November and it met twice during the following week. I leave my suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration.
For my part, I shall consider the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Mr. Sheldon), who gave the House the benefit of his experience and reflections on the procedure that is needed to determine priorities for public expenditure. I shall study his speech and the report and perhaps we shall return during a future debate to its main recommendation, which is the need for a better mechanism for determining public expenditure priorities.
The right hon. Member for Worthing, who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme, has experience as a Treasury Minister, told the House that the present mechanism is not working. He referred to overseas aid and to the recent furore about student grants in giving two specific examples. I felt that he was criticising the Government's political judgment and not the mechanism. I wondered whether he was indulging in what I believe Conservative Members call coded language and criticising the judgments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the rest of the Cabinet. He criticised what the Chancellor has described as the Government's policies, pledges and priorities. However, we are debating the autumn statement and not the Select Committee's report.
The Chancellor has claimed in the autumn statement and in his speech today that the economy is making progress. He claims that we have had steady growth over the past four years. That is true if we take the output measure of growth. We shall put on one side the fact that the Chancellor has chosen the last four years and has not taken the Government's full period of office. We shall also put on one side the fact that the rate of growth has still not reached that which marked the end of the previous Labour Government in 1979.
580
If we are seeing steady growth and improvement in the economy, we are bound to ask what is the purpose of the improvement. During the past year, there has been no reduction in the level of unemployment. Indeed, unemployment has risen by 139,000 real people. If the level is adjusted by statisticians, there has been a greater rise, but I prefer to think of real people. Nor has there been any improvement in the standard of living of the unemployed, the sick or the elderly. There has been no expansion of public welfare or public services, which benefit not only the elderly and the unemployed but also the employed and their families.
The only objective of the Government's economic policy is to increase the private consumption of those who are still lucky enough to have jobs, especially those who are lucky enough to have jobs in privately owned industry or services. The Government are not concerned to improve the standard of living of those who work in the public service such as civil servants and National Health Service employees. It is revealed in the autumn statement that during the coming year the Government propose to squeeze the pay of civil servants and that of NHS employees by offering them only 3 per cent. at a time when the Government forecast that inflation will be running at 4·5 per cent., and at a time they forecast that wage increases in the private sector will be higher still. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, that assumption is either unrealistic or unfair.
Unemployment has been at the heart of the debate, as it is at the heart of the autumn statement. Unemployment has been the theme of speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Government Members such as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey). Of course, most Conservative Members were careful to distance themselves from Labour party policies, but they all urged that something be done about unemployment. We disagree, not about the disease, but about the cure.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking to the National Economic Development Council yesterday, he said that he too was worried about unemployment, but that there was nothing that he could do about it. What he meant was that he cannot do anything about unemployment because he is trapped between three constraints—the constraint of his prejudice, the constraint of his obsession, and the constraint of his determination to cut income tax even though a cut in income tax does not reduce unemployment as much as an increase of the same amount in public expenditure.
The Chancellor lacks both the will and the imagination to do something about unemployment. He is not usually unimaginative. He has lots of imagination about new taxes. Earlier this year he introduced a new tax—a tax for the first time on the interest on savings. Next year I have no doubt that he will introduce another new tax—on early retirement. We shall also experience a massive increase in another of the Chancellor's new imaginative taxes — the negative external financing limits for nationalised industries.
The autumn statement shows that the external financing limits will be reduced in the coming year by £500 million. I am sorry to say that that is another example of what has

581
been described as the Chancellor's funny figures. The real reduction in the external financing limits for nationalised industries is not £500 million, but £1·2 billion.
One of the few tables in the autumn statement which does not compare next year with this year is that which shows the external financing limits for nationalised industries. The Opposition have learnt that, when the Chancellor does not produce the figures, he usually has something to hide. When we compare the small print in the autumn statement with that in last year's autumn statement, we discover why the Chancellor is so coy. He is not comparing like with like. The lists of nationalised industries are not the same.
Next year, for the first time, he will include London Regional Transport, because of the abolition of the GLC. He will also lose British Telecom and British Airways as a result of other Government policies.
The revenue to replace the lost revenue will come mainly from the energy industries—coal, gas and electricity—and the water supply industry. The Chancellor will take £1·2 billion from consumers. At least, we assume he will. We must assume that the Chancellor will not reduce investment programmes in the nationalised industries. We must assume that he intends to raise the money, as he has before, through unnecessarily higher prices. If investment is kept at the same level even more unnecessarily higher prices will be introduced.
The consumers of water, gas and electricity include every household in the country. They include the unemployed as well as those with jobs, the poor as well as the rich, the sick as well as the healthy, the old as well as the young, and disproportionately so. The unemployed, the poor, the sick and the elderly need more heat and use more electricity and gas than the rest of us.
Electricity and gas are consumed not only by every family but also by industry. The Chancellor's decision to take an extra £1·2 billion from those nationalised industries will mean higher prices which will be paid by industry and will be reflected in higher industrial costs. That will have an inevitable effect on employment.
It is no use the Chancellor blaming trade union negotiators for every increase in industrial costs, when he is putting up the costs of every industry using gas and electricity. He is doing all that so that millions of pounds can be transferred from the gas and electricity supply industries to the Treasury to finance cuts in income tax for those who have not yet lost their jobs.
During this debate, several Conservative Members defended the use of the £1·5 billion to cut income tax by referring to the tax paid by the low paid. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) was especially critical of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, accusing my right hon. Friend of retreating from recent speeches and of not recognising that the unemployed would pay taxes if the tax threshold were not raised. He did not seem to understand that when my right hon. Friend talked about tax paid by the unemployment, he was referring to value added tax and other indirect taxes, which bear most heavily on the unemployed, the elderly and those who receive social security payments. It is too much for the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, even if he was a member of the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, to accuse my right hon. Friend of not wanting to raise the tax threshold. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere should know
582
perfectly well that the tax threshold will be raised automatically as a result of what is known as the Rooker-Wise amendment.
The right hon. Member for Hertsmere, who I thought used to be an accountant, does not understand the autumn statement. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) have not read the autumn statement as carefully as they should have done. They thought that the £1·5 billion would be used to raise the tax threshold under the Rooker-Wise amendment. [Interruption.] That is what they thought. I refer the right hon. Member for Hertsmere to table 1.9 in the autumn statement. That table clearly shows that the implied fiscal adjustment—that is what the Chancellor calls it—is calculated at £1·5 billion, after allowing for general receipts of £148·5 million.
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 1.59 on the previous page, he will note that, as always, the Chancellor has followed the usual practice. Receipts have been projected
"on conventional assumptions of revalorisation of the main direct tax allowances and thresholds".
The Rooker-Wise amendment is safe without the £1·5 billion. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere will note that that statement is correct if he takes the trouble to read the autumn statement more carefully.
Mr. Wainwright: That is an important point. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party will regard it as sufficient if the next Budget merely complies with the Rooker-Wise amendment? Would any further lifting next March of the threshold beyond the Rooker-Wise amendment be a lower priority?
Mr. Davis: I shall come to that point directly. The hon. Gentleman must not escape responsibility for his earlier remarks. He, too, accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook of not wanting to raise the tax threshold.
Other Conservative Members who, no doubt, react the autumn statement more carefully argued for the £1·5 billion to be used to cut the taxes of low-paid people. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) in a persuasive speech went so far as to argue for a reduction in the national insurance contributions of the low-paid. I have a great deal of sympathy with that argument. But neither the low-paid nor the Labour party—I do not speak for the Liberal party—will be taken in by that argument.
We have had five years of Conservative Government. When we consider how the Chancellor of the Exchequer will use £1·5 billion in his next Budget, we are perfectly entitled to look at what the Government have already done to income tax and national insurance contributions.
Mr. Forman: I would listen with more sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's argument if it were not for the fact that his party, when last in government, as he knows, had many opportunities to take significant action on national insurance and did not manage to abolish the national insurance surcharge.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman, who may have been in that Parliament, will also remember what happened then in regard to income tax and national insurance contributions. He argued this evening that we should treat them equally and treat national insurance the same—as taxes paid by low-paid people.

583
I remind the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington of the figures. In the last year of the Labour Government, a single person on two thirds of average earnings paid 27·7 per cent. of his or her income in income tax and national insurance contributions. After the last Budget of this Government, that person on two thirds of average earnings pays not 27·7 per cent. but 29·5 per cent. of income in income tax and national insurance contributions. For a married couple, the comparative figures would be 22·2 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government and 24 per cent. now. If the married couple had two children, the figures would be 12 per cent. then as compared with 13 per cent. now.
Mr. Tim Yeo: The hon. Gentleman has totally failed to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), which was about national insurance surcharge —the jobs tax. The hon. Gentleman's Government were only too willing to increase it. Every time they had to run cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund for a bit more money, they increased the job tax, which this Government have abolished.
Mr. Davis: What the hon. Gentleman does not know—he was not in the Chamber at the time—is that his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to national insurance contributions, and I am now replying to the debate. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) would be so polite as to attend a debate if he wishes to intervene in the windup speeches. I shall not give way to anyone else who was not present during the debate.
The Labour party advocated the abolition of its national insurance surcharge. It is true that it was introduced by a Labour Government at a time of crisis. The Labour party gave a higher priority to its abolition than was given to it by the Conservative party. [Interruption.] I will not be pushed from the point. We advocated its abolition, and if we had done it, we would have made sure that local authorities had the benefit as well as privately owned industry, in order to avoid low-paid people paying higher rates. [Interruption.]
However, we must look not only at the taxes on the low-paid. To get the full flavour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's tax policy, we must look at his policy for someone who has higher than two thirds average earnings. Let us consider the position of a single person with five times average earnings. In the last year of the Labour Government, that person would have paid 53 per cent. of his income in tax. He now pays 45 per cent.
The right hon. Member for Hertsmere also claimed that the problem with the British economy is not shortage of demand. He told us about his visit to a motor manufacturer in Japan. He said that it was clear from his experience that our problems were due not to lack of demand but to trade unions and the strikers in our companies.
Mr. Parkinson rose—
Mr. Davis: I shall not give way again. That was what the right hon. Gentleman said, and he is out of date. Obviously, he does not know that when the Rover factory at Solihull closed, under this Government, British Leyland management itself—through Sir Michael Edwardes, no
584
less—said that it was not because of industrial relations but because of lack of demand. When men were laid off for the third time running at Metro-Cammell in Birmingham this year, it was not because of bad labour relations. There had never been a strike there. It was because of lack of demand, as a result of this Government's policies.
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman has spent half his speech misquoting me. I do not complain about that, but perhaps he will now comment on what I actually said. I pointed out that retail demand alone had risen by nearly £6 billion. I drew attention to the huge growth in world trade and the possibilities for the sale of British goods. I also mentioned that the Japanese company that I visited, which had grown by nearly 25 per cent. during the recession, had not lost a day through strike action in 33 years, whereas every motor manufacturer in this country—and there is no shortage of demand in the motor vehicles sector of the economy—has had strike action in the past two months. That is the contrast that I emphasised and which the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid.
Mr. Davis: We are not going to have a debate about the motor industry now, and I intend to claim injury time from the Chief Secretary's winding-up speech. One reason why there are strikes in motor car factories now is that all those factories which never had strikes have been closed under this Government. That is what they got for not being militant.
A Labour Government would increase demand by increasing public expenditure because we believe that that would increase the number of jobs, both directly by employing people in the public service—in the social services and in the Health Service, to cite just two examples—and indirectly by producing more employment in private industry by increasing demand in the economy generally.
The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) disagreed and drew attention to certain economic studies which I have not seen. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook did not represent the complete spread of economic thinking. That is not surprising, as there is as much disagreement among economists as there is between our parties. The answer to the right hon. Member for Guildford was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne who pointed out that four years of policies of cutting income tax had not succeeded in reducing unemployment. In any case, the right hon. Member for Guildford spoiled his own case by arguing both for tax cuts and for an increase in capital expenditure, so at least we agree on something, as a Labour Government would indeed increase public expenditure.
In real terms, public expenditure this year will be less. The £132 billion is the same as this year's plan for £126·3 billion after adjusting for inflation, but the Government will actually be spending £128 billion, so there will be a reduction next year. The same total is to be spent next year as was spent in 1983–84. For two years running there will have been no real increase. That is a source of satisfaction to the Chancellor, but to the Labour party it is a confession of failure.
We must examine not just the total but the pattern of public expenditure. Within the total, compared with this year and not with the previous plans for next year, in

585
percentage terms the budget for the EEC, albeit a small amount in absolute terms, has been doubled. The biggest increases are £2·8 billion on social security, £1 billion on the Health Service and £1 billion on defence.
The increase in social security expenditure is not due to any improvement in the standard of living for pensioners or people on social security benefits, who are protected only against inflation as determined in May. The 3 per cent. increase in real terms is due to the increased number of pensioners and, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) pointed out, the increased number of unemployed. That is the secret behind the autumn statement.
The £1 billion increase for the Health Service is a real increase of only 1 per cent. Anyone who has ever studied the Health Service knows that it needs more than that to stand still, given the effect of the increased number of pensioners and of technological improvements in medicine.
The £1 billion increase for defence, however, is a real increase of 3 per cent. For the Conservatives, defence is more important than the Health Service.
The Chancellor reminded us today that, if total public expenditure is kept constant, more money for one heading must mean less for another. The consequence of increased expenditure on social security due to increased unemployment, on the Health Service due to the increased number of pensioners and on defence due to Government policies and priorities must therefore mean that other services will suffer, and that is what will happen.
There is a reduction in real terms for education, for transport, for trade and industry and for employment. The biggest cut of all is in housing. There will be a cut of £200 million in cash when the allocation should have increased by £100 million merely to stay the same in real terms, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer originally planned. Therefore, the real reduction will be £200 million, which is a cut of 12 per cent. That cut is concentrated on capital expenditure where the real cut will be £400 million, and people in the building industry tell us that the reduction will be 25 per cent.
That is the cruellest cut of all. At present there is a terrible shortage of council houses in all our cities, and no doubt also in rural areas. In the areas where the shortage is worst, there is a major problem for owner-occupiers because houses are decaying around them. Yet the Government plan to spend not more, but less, on improvement grants. At the same time there is record unemployment in the building industry. That results from the Chancellor's insistence on an inflexible limit of £132 billion for public expenditure. It means that essential services such as housing, health, education and transport, will be cut to pay for the inevitable consequences of an aging population and rising unemployment.
The position is worse than that. We have not yet been given the detailed figures for each departmental budget. I presume that they will be published in February. Already we can see what is happening. There is a clear and deliberate Government policy, for which every Cabinet member must share responsibility, to transfer the cost of a service to the person who needs it.
It has been the Government's policy towards the Health Service ever since they were elected. That is why they have increased prescription charges from 20p to £1·60. They will increase prescription charges by a further 20p next year. At a time of 4·5 per cent. inflation, prescription
586
charges will increase by 12·5 per cent. The Government are transferring the cost of the Health Service from the healthy to the sick.
This summer the Secretary of State for Social Services took £1 a week from thousands of the poorest pensioners to pay for the increased cost of social security as a result of rising unemployment. Only a fortnight ago the Foreign Secretary robbed Peter to pay Paul. This week the Secretary of State for Education and Science tried to make students and their parents pay for scientific research. In exactly the same way, the Secretary of State for Employment plans to provide for a higher level of redundancy payments by closing 29 skillcentres. The Secretary of State for Transport is planning God knows what by taking away bus passes from pensioners.
That goes on in every department. Just as the Chancellor is not alone in his responsbility for public expenditure cuts, so he is not alone in his responsibility for unemployment. His right hon. and hon. Friends share the responsibility. This week they showed what they could do. They managed to make the Government Front Bench climb down over student grants. Conservative Members should help the Chancellor, just as they helped the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, 3 million unemployed people and their families wait to see whether Tory Members care as much about the unemployed as they do about parents with above average incomes and children at university.
Public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement will be £1·5 billion extra this year because of the cost of the miners' strike, yet the Government refuse to spend £1·5 billion next year to create jobs. The Chancellor has the money, but he will use it to cut income tax. We know that he will not cut taxes, because he is considering the introduction of new taxes. He plans to extend VAT to tea, biscuits, books, newspapers and children's shoes, none of which has ever been taxed before. What will he do with the extra money? Will he use it to help the needy, house the homeless, treat the sick, educate our children, provide warmth for the elderly, train the unemployed or create jobs? No, this Tory Chancellor, this Tory Government and these Tory Members will use it in the only way they know how: to cut income tax for those who still have jobs and to cut it most for the people who have most.
The autumn statement shows that the Government prefer to cut taxes for people of above average earnings instead of reducing unemployment; and prefer to use the money to cut taxes rather than increase spending on essential public services. The autumn statement is a smokescreen for a deliberate and direct attack on the idea of the social compact that we all have with one another, an agreement that we will make effective provision for our common needs—education and old age—and for those human misfortunes of sickness and unemployment.
The autumn statement is a charter for selfishness. it is the financial equivalent of "stand on your own feet", and "on your bike". It shows that the Government have turned their backs on the belief that "no man is an island". It is a rejection of the idea of fraternity, and it should itself be rejected by the House tonight.
9.30 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): This has been an interesting and stimulating debate, and we have had a speech full of verve from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), but that is not surprising as the questions at issue lie at the heart of this and, indeed, any Government's responsibilities.
If government is about choice, as Aneurin Bevan reminded us—essentially, public expenditure is about choice—the aggregate of public expenditure is the reconciliation of the myriad of choices, some great and some small; but the ultimate luxury of political debate is to detach one choice from all the others that must be made and assume that somehow that aggregate can remain unaffected.
It is against that background, and against the experience that I have gained—sometimes painfully, I admit, through two public expenditure rounds—that I come to the notable contributions to the debate.
I am sure that the House is indebted to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service for a thoughtful critique of the autumn statement, which has been reinforced by a powerful contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The House may not be surprised to hear that I do not accept its conclusions in their entirety, but I recognise that I am right to pay tribute to it as a valuable contribution to our debate. We have been fortunate in having contributions from two former Financial Secretaries—my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I am sure that we were all grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for his candid admission of what it was to be a Treasury Minister under a Labour Government.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman was advocating all the fiddles.
Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman can apply his forensic talents to the problems of housing. If he wishes to intervene in those debates, I am sure that he will listen with respect. He can carry his obsessions to other matters.
We were touched by the candid admission of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that the problem that he faced was that all the Labour Government's plans were predicated on the basis of a growth in resources which just did not occur. That is a trap which I am sure my right hon. Friend and the other members of the Treasury Front Bench do no wish to repeat in this Parliament.
Ms. Short: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is certainly ensuring that there is no growth.
Mr. Rees: The hon. Lady has made her contribution, and I hope that I may come to it in due course. She fails to observe that over the past four years the country has managed to increase its gross domestic product by 2·5 per cent. on average. I am aware that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) find it hard to accept those facts, but I hope that we can at least debate those issues on some common ground. [Interruption.]
The Committee's report is perhaps more interesting than the contributions of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who did not take part in the debate. I do not
588
blame him for that because I know that he has other responsibilities. The Committee's report is critical of the mechanism by which decisions in the public expenditure round are taken and calls for a reversal of the methods by which public expenditure priorities are determined. It suggests that priorities are determined somewhat arbitrarily at bilateral meetings between the Chief Secretary and his spending colleagues. I suspect that it faced the Chief Secretary with a somewhat awesome role, to which this Chief Secretary certainly does not lay claim. The reality is somewhat different.
First, negotiation takes place against the background of manifesto commitments, of individual decisions over previous years, of known governmental priorities and of the Green Paper on long-term public expenditure trends which we, the first Government to do so, published last year. Secondly, aggregate spending for next year is determined collectively by Cabinet in July. The final outcome is the subject of collective review by Cabinet. Thirdly, the process of determination is subject to inputs from many sources. The more sensitive the political issue the less likely it is that it will be determined, even in the first instance, by just two Ministers.
At the end of the day the conclusions of Government are submitted to the House of Commons whose decision must be paramount, as the Government are the first to recognise. It is tempting to suggest that the whole process should be put into commission. A moment's reflection, however, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, with his experience of government, will show that this is hardly a practicable way of determining the hundreds of issues, many of great detail and complexity, which have to be determined in the course of a public expenditure round. I understand that the Japanese Cabinet goes into continuous session, which often lasts for two days, to determine these issues. Whether that suits the Japanese temperament and system is not for me to say. I am not certain whether the outcome, in British terms, would be more successful than that which we have achieved.
There were questions from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and others about what happened during the course of this public expenditure round. They must contain their curiosity until such memoirs as are going to be published are published. We have a wealth of knowledge and experience of what happened under previous Labour Administrations. I suspect that a little more discrimination will be shown by the members of the present Administration.
Mr. Wainwright: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is claiming so much for the present system of allocating public expenditure, we do not to have to wait for memoirs for him to tell us whether the original decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science about student grants was specifically and explicitly endorsed by the Cabinet. Or did it never go to them?
Mr. Rees: The House will understand that I do not intend to gratify the curiosity of the hon. Gentleman on this point. I subscribe, as do all my colleagues, to the doctrine of collective responsibility.
Mr. Straw: Except to the lobby.
Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Blackburn may leak all his innermost thoughts to the lobby, but his example is not followed by this Administration.

589
The next substantial criticism in the report is that the true underlying level of public expenditure is significantly understated. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and also by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). It is a serious charge, with which I shall attempt to deal.
The report draws attention to the figures for increased asset sales, the treatment of the abolition of the national insurance surcharge, and the treatment of debt interest. This is a criticism of both form and substance. As regards form, so long as the accounting conventions are consistent—the accounting conventions which we follow are adopted internationally and were adopted by the previous Labour Administration—clearly understood and transparent, I see no harm in the treatment afforded to them in the autumn statement and in previous public expenditure White Papers.
As regards substance, there has been no shortfall in the previous years of this Administration in the figures for asset sales. The point has been made in this debate, as it has been made in previous debates, that asset sales should be treated in a different way. It has been said that they should be treated as a means of financing public expenditure. I throw back this question. I am bound to say that I did not receive a satisfactory answer in last year's debates and I do not anticipate that I shall receive a satisfactory answer in this debate. If that is so, it follows that the acquisition of assets should be treated in a separate way.
After the success of the BT issue, I have modest optimism about future privatisation ventures. Therefore, the figures in the autumn statement are relatively modest; they show an increase of only £500 million on the figure in the public expenditure White Paper.
Mr. Fisher: How does the Chief Secretary explain the increase in asset sales of £500 million?
Mr. Rees: That would be a matter of commercial confidentiality. I would not declare to the House the exact figures that we hoped to achieve in any privatisation venture. The hon. Gentleman, with his deep understanding of these matters, will readily appreciate that such action by me could prejudice the market. I am sure that the Opposition would say that I was giving my friends outside the House the chance to make a big killing. Such charges come all too readily from Labour Members.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggested that the figures for council house sales were illusory, but the House will recall that interest rates have come down, there have been changes in house prices and the Housing and Building Control Act has put the opportunity of buying their own homes within the reach of many more of our fellow countrymen. The appetite of the British people to own their own homes, even when those homes were generated by the public sector, is still unsatisfied.
Mr. Fisher: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Rees: No. I hope that I have dealt fairly with the points made by the hon. Gentleman and I have many more to answer.
It is true that there has been no adjustment to the totals, in spite of the abolition of the national insurance surcharge. However, it is the convention that, with cash planning, not every such change calls for an adjustment of
590
the planning totals. Otherwise, changes in, for example, corporation tax and VAT, which might work the other way, would have to be reflected in the totals.
Debt interest was the subject of another charge made by the Select Committee. Since 1979–80, debt interest has not formed part of the planning totals, because the amount of interest is too volatile for it sensibly to form part of a control total. However, it is, of course, taken into account in the overall strategy of the Government.
The third substantial criticism made by the Select Committee is that the Government are unlikely to keep their expenditure within the 1985–86 planning totals. I remind the House that this is the fourth year in which Government Departments have been planning in cash. In each year since March 1982, with the exception of the current year, the outturn has been within the White Paper totals. That is not a bad record. However, I candidly admit that the overshoot for the current year is likely to he about £1·5 billion.
Naturally, that is a matter of profound regret to me, but let me identify two of the main causes of the overshoot. The first is the miners' strike. I do not think that, on any fair view, that industrial encounter could or should have been foreseen when last year's autumn statement was prepared and debated. Nor do I believe that the miners' strike should be regarded as a precedent for future years. If Labour Members encourage their friends in the trade union movement to repeat that sort of encounter, the country will be able to judge their dedication to the welfare of their fellow countrymen.
The second item is the likely current overspend by local authorities, which could total as much as £1·2 billion this year. We have taken stern measures to ensure that such an overspend should not be repeated next year. First, an extra £900 million has been allocated for local authority current expenditure, a tougher holdback regime will be instituted and the 18 local authorities that, together, account for 80 per cent. of the overspend will be rate-capped. That demonstrates the purpose behind that measure.
Beyond that, we shall have a contingency reserve of £3 billion. Some have criticised us for reducing that sum from the £3·75 billion which appeared in the public expenditure White Paper. It is reasonable to have a larger reserve for later years—the greater the distance in time, the greater the uncertainties—but, beyond that, we have allocated an extra £2 billion to certain demand-led programmes—the intervention board's purchases, the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the social security programme.
I turn with less relish to the rather bombastic intervention of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook As we know that he is a kindly person, we were sorry indeed that he should have traduced my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the way that he did. I hope that we shall be able to maintain the courtesies of debate. I am sorry that such a genial figure as the right hon. Gentleman should try to project himself in a cold, cutting role.
The right hon. Gentleman identified unemployment as the crucial issue, but he posed a wholly bogus dilemma between cutting taxation and cutting unemployment. That is not a dilemma that I recognise. It is possible, and over the course of time the Government's policy will demonstrate, that both taxation and unemployment can be cut.
Mr. Hattersley: Ministers have been saying for five years that over the course of time their policies will cut unemployment. When will the promise be kept?
Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman must contain himself with patience. Let me remind him—[Interruption.] Allow me to make the relevant point. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of several Administrations over about 20 years up to 1980 under which public expenditure, taxes and unemployment rose. Was he happy wih the record of the Administration of which he was a distinguished member? This Government states that there is not the facile correlation which he asserts between cutting taxes and cutting unemployment.
The implication in the right hon. Gentleman's proposition is that our tax cuts have been directed primarily to the better-off. Let us look at the facts. The threshold for a married man or a single man has more than doubled since 1979. Let the right hon. Gentleman ponder that simple proposition.
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, over and above the indexation of the thresholds, our policies have taken 850,000 of our fellow countrymen out of tax. That is a record of which we can be proud.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Rees: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman took no part in our debate. He will have other opportunities. I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made a range of spurious points. He turned, predictably, to gas and electricity prices. He cannot have heard the evidence given recently to the Select Committee by Sir Denis Rooke and Mr. Philip Jones who both suggested that there would probably be no increase in real terms. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that under the Administration of which he was a distinguished ornament—he can move uneasily on the Bench, because the facts should be known and repeated—electricity prices, for example, went up by 170 per cent.—2 per cent. for every five weeks of that Administration. Under this Government it has been 2 per cent. every two years. Did he regard that as taxation in those days?
We know, because we have all read the noble Lord Barnett's admirable work, that the right hon. Gentleman voted without conviction for those measures. The only conviction that the right hon. Gentleman shows is the conviction that he shows in these debates now. The role of the passionate compassionate defender of the less well-off members of our society befits him ill. The Franciscan habit does not sit easily on his shoulders.
Mr. Rooker: Hark who is talking.
Mr. Rees: I have never made the assertions that the right hon. Gentleman has. I know my limitations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
However, there was one great omission from the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. After every intervention, we were told that he would turn in due course to the policies that he would propose to the country if he were Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be that I dozed off, but none of my hon. Friends can tell me what exactly those policies were. I will very readily give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell me just one thing. By how much, if he were Chancellor, would he increase the planning total? [HON. MEMBERS: "Stand up."] If, as I
592
suppose, the implication is that they would be increased by a sizeable amount, what would be the consequences for interest rates, and how would he finance them? By borrowing, or by taxation?
I see that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who spoke for the Liberals, has been joined by powerful reinforcements in the form of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). As I often do, I shall pay unsolicited tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who was one of the few Chancellors who has ever managed to produce a balanced budget.
At least the spokesman for the Liberal party was candid and precise, and gave a figure. That figure does not bear close examination and I do not believe that it would make a substantial contribution towards solving the problem of unemployment, but at least the hon. Gentleman shared his thoughts with the House.
Mr. Rooker: When shall we see a balanced Tory Budget?
Mr. Rees: I have said that in due course we hope to move to zero inflation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Next year?"] No, not next year.
I turn to a point that has exercised the minds of various right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the hon. Member for Colne Valley and my hon. Friends the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey). This is the question of the infrastructure and capital investment. The facts should be more generally known. Since 1979—net of sales, which is what often confuses the right hon. Gentleman—we have been spending £9 billion in cash every year. In other words, if one takes away the figure for sales against which that figure has been netted off, that means a gross figure of £22 billion per annum. That figure disregards the current spending. The hon. Member for Colne Valley is worried about the deterioration of the infrastructure, but the best estimate of the Department of the Environment alone—leaving aside nationalised industries, for instance—is that £5 billion is spent on repairs every year.
Beyond that, private investment has increased considerably. Taken together in 1984–85, private and public investment is likely to be of the order of £45·5 billion. It is true that one could have a sensible debate about whether the figure should be increased still further. I believe that the supposition that every form of infrastructure investment is necessarily for the good of the country and generates jobs is fallacious, but those who assume that nothing is being done are wildly wide of the mark. The emphasis is always on movement towards the private sector, because that is the philosophy that underlines the present Government's policies.
Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with oil revenues and the exchange rate?
Mr. Rees: Yes, those are matters of importance. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to statements attributed to the Minister without portfolio, Lord Young. Lord Young did not suggest that those aged 16 and 17 should be deprived of supplementary benefits. He said that it is much better to provide them with a job or with training. That must be a better way to start off than supplementary benefit. I am sure that the House

593
appreciates the fact that he was prepared to share his thoughts so openly. That is how we should debate these matters.
Perhaps I might now return to the main theme of the Government's overall public expenditure policy as reflected in the autumn statement. It is to hold public expenditure broadly stable in real terms. That is the basis for the figure of £132 billion in the autumn statement. It reflects the figure in the last public expenditure White Paper. It also reflects the figure in the public expenditure White Paper before that and it was the figure on which we fought the last general election—no secret manifesto there.
I do not think that I need emphasise to the House that this is not an easy objective. It was recognised by those who have had a taste of government and by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I have been and no doubt will continue to be assailed by some who say that the figure is too high and that our budgetary aims and methods are too lax and by others who say that it is too low, that the target is too stringent and too insensitive. I must say that I take some comfort from the balancing nature of these criticisms.
I take some comfort from those who argue for a higher total because, like the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, they are usually evasive about what it should be, how it should be financed, the consequences for interest rates or inflation, and why the consequences of such a course should be different from those experienced by Administrations emancipated from Professor Hayek and the kitchen sink. There will always be siren voices that tell us that all our problems can be resolved by larger and larger infusions of public money.
To those who argue for a lower total, I listen with more respect, but I ask them to tell the House where and how they would look for the economies that would be needed, and how far they would be prepared to back such decisions when the going got rough. The course that we have adopted is in fact a tough one. That I will not deny. Contrary to popular mythology, it does not involve and has not involved a regime of savage cuts. For real cuts one has to look back to the last Labour Government who were lured by the IMF, to France and, it seems likely, to the United States, but our policies mean that the inevitable and necessary increases in various programmes should be offset by economies in others and that priorities should be reviewed from time to time.
However, if ours is a tough policy it offers three incomparable advantages. First, the advantage of stability. Those outside Government who have to chart their course with a wary eye on Government and have to decide whether to invest and whether to take on extra employees have the assurance of a stable framework within which to cast their plans. They have the assurance that there will not be 17 or 18 Budgets during the lifetime of this Parliament. The second advantage is that, as the economy grows—in spite of the gloomy fulminations of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the economy has grown and is continuing to grow—the share of the country's resources taken by the state will go on falling from 43·5 per cent. in 1981–82 to 41 per cent. in 1985–86. The third advantage is that Government will have the scope to take rational decisions about the structure and rate of taxation. The figure of £1·5 billion quoted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for next year's fiscal adjustment may be
594
hedged around with many qualifications, but it suggests that there should be scope for further reductions in the burden of taxation.
This is a policy of which our fellow countrymen approve, because it will take more of them out of tax altogether. It is often overlooked that demand can be created through higher net incomes just as surely as by higher Government spending. Wage negotiators are not entirely unaware of the impact of direct taxation. It is therefore right to stress that jobs, too, can be created by tax cuts—indeed, some might say more effectively in the longer term than by increased Government expenditure. The decision that we take tonight is therefore about jobs. Irrespective of whether the fiscal adjustment is used in that way, it is important that a Government's capacity to take decisions should not be frittered away by the slow remorseless drift of public expenditure.
I commend this autumn statement to the House on the basis that it is the prospectus on which my right hon. and hon. Friends fought the last two elections. That is, the prospectus which was overwhelmingly endorsed by our fellow countrymen. That prospectus is as sound today as it was when it was devised. It is the prospectus that I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support in the Division Lobby tonight.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided:Ayes 199, Noes 346.

Division No.38]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Craigen, J. M.

Anderson, Donald

Crowther, Stan

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cunningham, Dr John

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

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

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Deakins, Eric

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dixon, Donald

Barnett, Guy

Dormand, Jack

Barron, Kevin

Douglas, Dick

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Dubs, Alfred

Bell, Stuart

Duffy, A. E. P.

Benn, Tony

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

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

Eadie, Alex

Bermingham, Gerald

Eastham, Ken

Bidwell, Sydney

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Blair, Anthony

Ewing, Harry

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Fatchett, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Faulds, Andrew

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Fisher, Mark

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

Flannery, Martin

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

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Forrester, John

Caborn, Richard

Foster, Derek

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Foulkes, George

Campbell, Ian

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Canavan, Dennis

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Garrett, W. E.

Cartwright, John

George, Bruce

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clarke, Thomas

Godman, Dr Norman

Clay, Robert

Gould, Bryan

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Cohen, Harry

Hardy, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Conlan, Bernard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Corbett, Robin

Heffer, Eric S.

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cowans, Harry

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

595

Home Robertson, John

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Howells, Geraint

Prescott, John

Hoyle, Douglas

Radice, Giles

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Randall, Stuart

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Redmond, M.

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Hughes, Simon (Southward)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hume, John

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Janner, Hon Greville

Robertson, George

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

John, Brynmor

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Kennedy, Charles

Rogers, Allan

Kilfedder, James A.

Rooker, J. W.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Kirkwood, Archy

Rowlands, Ted

Lamond, James

Ryman, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Sedgemore, Brian

Leighton, Ronald

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Litherland, Robert

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Skinner, Dennis

Loyden, Edward

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

McCartney, Hugh

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

McCrea, Rev William

Snape, Peter

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Soley, Clive

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Spearing, Nigel

McKelvey, William

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Maclennan, Robert

Stott, Roger

McNamara, Kevin

Strang, Gavin

McTaggart, Robert

Straw, Jack

McWilliam, John

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Madden, Max

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Marek, Dr John

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Tinn, James

Maxton, John

Torney, Tom

Maynard, Miss Joan

Wainwright, R.

Meacher, Michael

Wallace, James

Meadowcroft, Michael

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Michie, William

Wareing, Robert

Mikardo, Ian

Weetch, Ken

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Welsh, Michael

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

White, James

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Wigley, Dafydd

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

O'Brien, William

Wilson, Gordon

O'Neill, Martin

Winnick, David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Woodall, Alec

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Park, George

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Parry, Robert

Patchett, Terry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pavitt, Laurie

Mr. James Hamilton and

Pendry, Tom

Mr. Sean Hughes.

Pike, Peter

NOES

Adley, Robert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Aitken, Jonathan

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Alexander, Richard

Blackburn, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Body, Richard

Amess, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Arnold, Tom

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Ashby, David

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

Aspinwall, Jack

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Bright, Graham

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Brinton, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Bellingham, Henry

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Browne, John

Benyon, William

Bruinvels, Peter

Best, Keith

Bryan, Sir Paul

Bevan, David Gilroy

Buck, Sir Antony

596

Budgen, Nick

Hayes, J.

Burt, Alistair

Hayhoe, Barney

Butler, Hon Adam

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heddle, John

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Henderson, Barry

Carttiss, Michael

Hickmet, Richard

Cash, William

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hill, James

Chapman, Sydney

Hind, Kenneth

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Churchill, W. S.

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

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

Holt, Richard

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hooson, Tom

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hordern, Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howard, Michael

Colvin, Michael

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

Conway, Derek

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Coombs, Simon

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Cope, John

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Corrie, John

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Couchman, James

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Crouch, David

Hunter, Andrew

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jackson, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dicks, Terry

Jessel, Toby

Dorrell, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dover, Den

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Robert

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Durant, Tony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Dykes, Hugh

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Evennett, David

Key, Robert

Fairbairn, Nicholas

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Fallon, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Farr, Sir John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Favell, Anthony

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Knox, David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lamont, Norman

Fletcher, Alexander

Lang, Ian

Fookes, Miss Janet

Latham, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Lawler, Geoffrey

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Forth, Eric

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fox, Marcus

Lester, Jim

Franks, Cecil

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lightbown, David

Freeman, Roger

Lilley, Peter

Gale, Roger

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Galley, Roy

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lord, Michael

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Luce, Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lyell, Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

McCrindle, Robert

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Gorst, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Gow, Ian

MacGregor, John

Gower, Sir Raymond

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Grant, Sir Anthony

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Greenway, Harry

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

Gregory, Conal

McQuarrie, Albert

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

Madel, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Major, John

Grist, Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Ground, Patrick

Malone, Gerald

Grylls, Michael

Maples, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Marland, Paul

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Marlow, Antony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hanley, Jeremy

Mates, Michael

Hannam, John

Mather, Carol

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Maude, Hon Francis

Harris, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Haselhurst, Alan

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hawksley, Warren

Mellor, David

597

Merchant, Piers

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Shersby, Michael

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Silvester, Fred

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Sims, Roger

Miscampbell, Norman

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Moate, Roger

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Monro, Sir Hector

Speed, Keith

Montgomery, Fergus

Speller, Tony

Moore, John

Spence, John

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Spencer, Derek

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Mudd, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Murphy, Christopher

Squire, Robin

Neale, Gerrard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Needham, Richard

Stanley, John

Nelson, Anthony

Steen, Anthony

Neubert, Michael

Stern, Michael

Newton, Tony

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Nicholls, Patrick

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Normanton, Tom

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Norris, Steven

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Onslow, Cranley

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Stokes, John

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Stradling Thomas, J.

Osborn, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Ottaway, Richard

Tapsell, Peter

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Temple-Morris, Peter

Parris, Matthew

Terlezki, Stefan

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Patten, John (Oxford)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Pawsey, James

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thornton, Malcolm

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Thurnham, Peter

Pollock, Alexander

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Porter, Barry

Tracey, Richard

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

Trippier, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Trotter, Neville

Powley, John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Price, Sir David

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Prior, Rt Hon James

Viggers, Peter

Proctor, K. Harvey

Waddington, David

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walden, George

Raffan, Keith

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Rathbone, Tim

Walker, Bill (Tside N)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Renton, Tim

Waller, Gary

Rhodes James, Robert

Walters, Dennis

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Ward, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Warren, Kenneth

Rifkind, Malcolm

Watson, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Watts, John

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wheeler, John

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Whitney, Raymond

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wiggin, Jerry

Rost, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Rowe, Andrew

Wolfson, Mark

Ryder, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Woodcock, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Yeo, Tim

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Younger, Rt Hon George

Scott, Nicholas

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Tellers for the Noes:

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 198.

Division No. 39]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Fallon, Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Farr, Sir John

Alexander, Richard

Favell, Anthony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Amess, David

Fletcher, Alexander

Ancram, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

Arnold, Tom

Forman, Nigel

Ash by, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Aspinwall, Jack

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Forth, Eric

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Fox, Marcus

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Franks, Cecil

Baldry, Tony

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Freeman, Roger

Beggs, Roy

Fry, Peter

Bellingham, Henry

Gale, Roger

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Galley, Roy

Best, Keith

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Blackburn, John

Gorst, John

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Gow, Ian

Body, Richard

Gower, Sir Raymond

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony

Bottomley, Peter

Greenway, Harry

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gregory, Conal

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

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

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grist, Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Ground, Patrick

Bright, Graham

Grylls, Michael

Brinton, Tim

Gummer, John Selwyn

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hanley, Jeremy

Browne, John

Hannam, John

Bruinvels, Peter

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Bryan, Sir Paul

Harris, David

Buck, Sir Antony

Harvey, Robert

Budgen, Nick

Haselhurst, Alan

Burt, Alistair

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Butler, Hon Adam

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Hayes, J.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Barney

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Hayward, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cash, William

Heddle, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Henderson, Barry

Chapman, Sydney

Hickmet, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Churchill, W. S.

Hill, James

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

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Holt, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Hooson, Tom

Conway, Derek

Hordern, Peter

Coombs, Simon

Howard, Michael

Cope, John

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'don-A)

Corrie, John

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Couchman, James

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Cranborne, Viscount

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Crouch, David

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Dicks, Terry

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Stephen

Jackson, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dover, Den

Jessel, Toby

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dunn, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Durant, Tony

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Dykes, Hugh

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Evennett, David

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

599

Key, Robert

Pattie, Geoffrey

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Pawsey, James

King, Rt Hon Tom

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Pollock, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Porter, Barry

Lang, Ian

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

Latham, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Powley, John

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Lee, John (Pendle)

Price, Sir David

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Lester, Jim

Raffan, Keith

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Rathbone, Tim

Lightbown, David

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Lilley, Peter

Renton, Tim

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Rhodes James, Robert

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lord, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Luce, Richard

Rifkind, Malcolm

Lyell, Nicholas

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

McCrindle, Robert

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Roe, Mrs Marion

Macfarlane, Neil

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

MacGregor, John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Rost, Peter

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Rowe, Andrew

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

Ryder, Richard

McQuarrie, Albert

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Madel, David

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Major, John

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Malins, Humfrey

Sayeed, Jonathan

Malone, Gerald

Scott, Nicholas

Maples, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Marland, Paul

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Marlow, Antony

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mates, Michael

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mather, Carol

Shersby, Michael

Maude, Hon Francis

Silvester, Fred

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Sims, Roger

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Mellor, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Merchant, Piers

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Speed, Keith

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Speller, Tony

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Spence, John

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Spencer, Derek

Miscampbell, Norman

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Moate, Roger

Squire, Robin

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Stanbrook, Ivor

Monro, Sir Hector

Stanley, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Steen, Anthony

Moore, John

Stern, Michael

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Mudd, David

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Murphy, Christopher

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Neale, Gerrard

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Needham, Richard

Stokes, John

Nelson, Anthony

Stradling Thomas, J.

Neubert, Michael

Sumberg, David

Newton, Tony

Tapsell, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Normanton, Tom

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Norris, Steven

Temple-Morris, Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Terlezki, Stefan

Oppenheim, Phillip

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Osborn, Sir John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Ottaway, Richard

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Thornton, Malcolm

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Thurnham, Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Parris, Matthew

Tracey, Richard

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Trippier, David

Patten, John (Oxford)

Trotter, Neville

600

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Wheeler, John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Whitney, Raymond

Viggers, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Waddington, David

Wilkinson, John

Walden, George

Wolfson, Mark

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Wood, Timothy

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Woodcock, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Yeo, Tim

Waller, Gary

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Walters, Dennis

Younger, Rt Hon George

Ward, John

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Warren, Kenneth

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Watson, John

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Watts, John

NOES

Abse, Leo

Faulds, Andrew

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Anderson, Donald

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fisher, Mark

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Flannery, Martin

Ashton, Joe

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Forrester, John

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Foster, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foulkes, George

Barnett, Guy

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Barron, Kevin

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Garrett, W. E.

Bell, Stuart

George, Bruce

Benn, Tony

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Godman, Dr Norman

Bermingham, Gerald

Gould, Bryan

Bid well, Sydney

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Blair, Anthony

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Boyes, Roland

Hardy, Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

Heffer, Eric S.

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Caborn, Richard

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Home Robertson, John

Campbell, Ian

Howells, Geraint

Canavan, Dennis

Hoyle, Douglas

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Cartwright, John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Clarke, Thomas

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Clay, Robert

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hume, John

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Janner, Hon Greville

Cohen, Harry

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Coleman, Donald

John, Brynmor

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Kennedy, Charles

Conlan, Bernard

Kilfedder, James A.

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cowans, Harry

Kirkwood, Archy

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Lamond, James

Craigen, J. M.

Leadbitter, Ted

Crowther, Stan

Leighton, Ronald

Cunningham, Dr John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

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

Litherland, Robert

Deakins, Eric

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dixon, Donald

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dormand, Jack

Loyden, Edward

Douglas, Dick

McCartney, Hugh

Dubs, Alfred

McCrea, Rev William

Duffy, A. E. P.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Eadie, Alex

McKelvey, William

Eastham, Ken

Maclennan, Robert

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

McNamara, Kevin

Ewing, Harry

McTaggart, Robert

Fatchett, Derek

McWilliam, John

601

Madden, Max

Redmond, M.

Marek, Dr John

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Maynard, Miss Joan

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Meacher, Michael

Robertson, George

Meadowcroft, Michael

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Michie, William

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Mikardo, Ian

Rogers, Allan

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Rooker, J. W.

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Rowlands, Ted

O'Brien, William

Ryman, John

O'Neill, Martin

Sedgemore, Brian

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Park, George

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Parry, Robert

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

Patchett, Terry

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Pavitt, Laurie

Skinner, Dennis

Pendry, Tom

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

Pike, Peter

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

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Snape, Peter

Prescott, John

Soley, Clive

Radice, Giles

Spearing, Nigel

Randall, Stuart

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (w Isles)

602

Stott, Roger

Welsh, Michael

Strang, Gavin

White, James

Straw, Jack

Wigley, Dafydd

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Wilson, Gordon

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Winnick, David

Tinn, James

Woodall, Alec

Torney, Tom

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Wainwright, R.

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wallace, James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Tellers for the Noes:

Wareing, Robert

Mr. John Maxton and

Weetch, Ken

Mr. Robin Corbett.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Autumn Statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th November; welcomes the prospect of continuing low inflation and steady growth as the basis for maintaining the trend of rising employment; and congratulates Her Majesty's Government on keeping the public expenditure planning total for 1985–1986within the figure publishing in the 1984 public Expenditure White Paper (cmnd.9143).

Autumn Statement

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lang.]

Orders of the Day
  Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill
  As amended, considered.
  Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill
    New Clause 1

      DURATION AND EXPIRY
      'This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the date on which it is passed.'. —[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.28 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      At every stage of the Bill so far, the Government have been at pains to emphasise its experimental and tentative nature. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is now seated at the Dispatch Box, has referred to the Government, in piloting this legislation, as sailing uncharted waters. Both he and his right hon. Friend have been very specific. For example, in Committee the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
      "We now have this new scheme, and we are right to test that."
      It is essentially an experimental operation. Later he said:
      "This is new territory." — [Official Report, 28 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 1022–6.]
      10.30 pm
      The Secretary of State himself was very specific in acknowledging the readiness of the Department and the Government to reconsider the provisions of the Bill in the light of the experience of its working. I remind the House of the words that he used. He said:
      "We believe…that the scheme in the Bill is the soundest one that can be put before the Committee at this stage. If, in the light of later experience, it proves to need change, it should be changed. All hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will be alert to that need and to that experience."
      With reference to the amendment then before the Committee, he continued:
      "However, we believe now, having listened to all the arguments with care, that the scheme in the Bill is preferable to the one in the amendment."—[Official Report, 28 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 992.]
      I emphasise the undertaking—for such it is—of the Secretary of State that if, in the light of later experience, the measure now before us proves to need change it should be changed. I cast no doubt or aspersion whatever on the candour of the Secretary of State and his colleague when they made those statements. I am sure that they are entirely sincere in saying that if, after a test of one, two or three elections, the legislation in its present form is found to be defective it will be changed.
      It is one thing, however, for the Secretary of State to make that assertion in all good faith in the House in 1984, but it is quite a different thing for the same Secretary of State or perhaps another—one never knows, once the regular two years have elapsed it may well be a different Secretary of State—to say to his colleagues in 1986, "I am sorry to have to admit to you that we made rather a mess of that legislation in 1984", to explain that there were serious defects that had caused grave embarrassment to the Government in the working of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1984 and to ask for the Cabinet's assent and

      605
      the assistance of the legislation committee of Cabinet to bring forward an Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Bill. I do not know what kind of reception he will get from the Leader of the House at that time or what kind of handling he will get in the legislation committee, but it is not the kind of experience for which Ministers readily volunteer — to go back to their colleagues, admit to having made a number of bosh shots and to ask for a further legislative slot in the next Session to put things right.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to save the Secretary of State from any such embarrassment. Our desire to do so is the more lively in that our perception of the defects of the Bill has been more realistic and acute than that of Ministers. Those of us who have been in the Province since the Bill was last considered in Committee have been asked about its provisions and have discussed them with our constituents. Our explanations have been greeted with hoots of laughter—not at our expense, but at the expense of the Government — at the idea that anyone could imagine that such a system could prove workable in practice. Usually our constituents were still laughing when we left them.
      The Secretary of State will not find it so agreeable, however, when our predictions are proved true at the next election and it turns out that the provisions of the Bill have been the means of denying many thousands of electors in Northern Ireland the opportunity to exercise the franchise to which they had every reason to believe that they were entitled.
      Therefore, we invite the Secretary of State to accept the assistance which we proffer in the new clause. Since the Bill is, on his own showing, experimental and a test, since he has determined that it shall be changed if change is needed, and it will be readily acknowledged that there are precedents in Northern Ireland legislation for an Act coming to a determinate conclusion—indeed, I got the working of the new clause from another Northern Ireland Act—let the Secretary of State acknowledge this. After that he will he fully within his rights in introducing a new Bill, if he wants one at all—that is extremely doubtful —which will be free from the defects of the present Bill. The only safeguard that the House can have is that the Secretary of State will be in a position to carry out the undertaking he has given. It is also the only safeguard, as we have reached this stage in the Bill, that those whom we represent can have that they will be liberated in a measurable time from the inconveniences that the provisions will impose on them.
      It may be thought and it may be a criticism—if so, we may be vulnerable to it—that we have allowed this legislation too long a life in our new clause. We have allowed it three years, where it may fairly be argued that the experience of one election—that which will occur in May 1985 — would be sufficient to throw into sharp relief the defects of the Act. Nevertheless, to show a desire to meet the Secretary of State, to show that we are not using the new clause simply as an alternative means of defeating his legislation, it seemed right to proffer a period of three years, since in that period there may well be both a parliamentary and a local government election. The two forms of election can be tested under the provisions of the Bill. That is the reason for the term of three years, which my right hon. Friends and I sought fit to suggest in the new clause.
      606
      If, when the Minister replies, he makes it clear that, although he wants either a shorter or, though I hope not, a longer period, he accepts the principle that since this is experimental it should be an experimental Bill, naturally we would be prepared to consider it. He will be on weak ground if he argues against making this a Bill of temporary duration. He will be on extremely weak ground in doing so for we shall remind him that the Province is at present governed by an Act that is renewed annually. Let him not, therefore, say that this comparatively minor piece of legislation should go on the statute book en permanence, failing such recantation or second thoughts that he or subsequent Ministers may have. Let him admit that if it is experimental, it should take its place among experimental Acts of definite duration so that the House will have the opportunity of reconsidering the position in three years' time from the passing of the Act.
      It is only fair to the one part of the United Kingdom on which the experiment is being conducted that the House should be not merely given the promise that changes will be considered if necessary, but that the House will survey the experience in the working of the legislation. As the House will be aware, it is part of our grievance that the experiment is not being performed upon the body corporate of the whole nation, but only upon a part—the Province. I hope that the old latin tag
      "experimentum in vili corpore"
      is not in the mind of the Government. They thought it a cheap means of carrying out an experiment to try it on Northern Ireland. If the House of Commons insists on trying this on Northern Ireland, at least it should say that after the trial the House will reconsider the experience which has been gained, an experience to which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I look forward with no joyous anticipation. I hope that we shall find the Minister susceptible to the arguments for the new clause.
      Mr. William Ross: The objections that we have voiced throughout the passage of the legislation remain and will remain even after it is passed into law, because we think that it is defective. We believe that it will not do the job that the Minister hopes that it will do. The main defect is that there is no positive identification of individuals who are standing before the officers in the polling station. There are no photographs and no system of a single card which ties the individual to the name on the register. We believe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has said, that a measure as experimental as this should not have an unduly long life before the Minister has to return to the House and give an account of the workings of the Act, and explain why he believes that the ill that occurred did occur.
      We are faced not just with the difficulty of stopping the personation that Sinn Fein attempts We are also faced with the problem of ensuring that all legitimate electors can cast their vote.
      As one talks to those in the constituencies who are involved in these matters—those who organise for the party of which we, at least, are members — one discovers that they share the misgivings that have been expressed so clearly from this Bench.
      There is anxiety that the legislation will not just fail in its stated objective but that the other edge of this two-edged sword will inhibit the legitimate elector from casting his vote.

      607
      We believe that those who framed the legislation have greatly underestimated the ruthlessness of those who will seek to bypass it—the IRA and the fellow travellers. One has only to consider the activities displayed by those vicious people in Northern Ireland to realise that. In the city of Londonderry, where of course personation is rife on the west bank, there was a punishment shooting only a week or two ago of four individuals whom the IRA decided were guilty of stepping out of line, in the opinion of Sinn Fein or the IRA. That is the type of threat that is held over the inhabitants of that part of the United Kingdom; that is the type of punishment and trial that people can expect.
      When that anarchy and ruthlessness is carried into the militaristic personation that we have seen in Northern Ireland one wonders why this weak Bill was presented at all. It is a sop to those who are calling for something to be done.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is not here.
      Mr. Ross: He rarely is. The Government have failed to seize the nettle of demanding that everyone in Northern Ireland carries a proper identity card at all times.
      I find annoying the inherent belief that people who are members of political parties, and who thereby make a target of themselves in Northern Ireland, are unwilling to stand up against the gunmen. That is not true. We were told by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), during one of his rare visits at the very beginning of the passage of this legislation, that on the first morning of an election 50 out of 700 electors on the roll were turned away for attempted personation. That reflects very great credit on the party of the hon. Member for Foyle. It reflects great credit on the capabilities and courage of his party workers, some of whom suffered afterwards, as he explained to us. It is also a denial of the belief that the people who fight and work for political parties in Northern Ireland are willing to stand up against the gunmen and the killers.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the new clause deals with the duration of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman is now going some way away from that point.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Ross: You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the fears we have expressed about trying to shorten the life of the Bill through the new clause arises out of the events that I have attempted to describe to the House. Some hon. Members were not present during our previous discussions and I should not wish there to be a Division on this matter without those hon. Members being made fully aware of the background and of the fears which we all share. It was for that reason that I digressed from the narrow point expressed in the new clause. If the people of Northern Ireland vote under this legislation without a time limit being imposed, they will find that they are saddled for ever with an ineffective instrument of law. Great reluctance is shown by any Government or Minister to admit that they have got it wrong, even when it is apparent to all involved in the execution of the legislation that they have got it widely wrong. Since the legislation applies only to Northern Ireland you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy
      608
      Speaker, that the majority of hon. Members in this House who never visit Northern Ireland during elections will not have detailed, first hand knowledge of the practical working of the legislation. I said at an earlier stage that a good sermon is always worth repeating two, three or four times, especially when there is a fresh audience—as, in some measure, we have this evening.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: There are plenty of sinners here.
      Mr. Ross: The right hon. Member for Antrim, North refers to sinners, but he will forgive me if I leave conversion to him and to his colleagues. They have taken on board the task of converting the sinners of this world. They have not yet been very successful with Sinn Fein, but one always lives in hope. The problems which will be encountered in trying to stop personation will not change. Although the Bill relates only to Westminster elections, we are very well aware that the first test will be at the local government elections in May 1985, to be followed 18 months later by elections to the Stormont Assembly. Only after that, apart from a strange mischance, will the matter be tested in a simple majority Westminster election.
      One has to question whether by introducing this measure in an attempt to cut down the apparent support for Sinn Fein the Government have got it wrong. I believe that they have. If we make dead sure that after three years they must come back to the House with another Bill they will be able to say that the past is over and done with and will escape the strictures of the House for having got it wrong the first time. They can then introduce a Bill, should this be necessary, which will be effective and do the job. They will find that the learning process which will take place over this period of three years will reveal what past statistics have already revealed.
      Those who run in terror from an apparent increase in the Sinn Fein vote run from a myth, a will o' the wisp that does not exist. That electoral support has fluctuated over the past three decades. The true Sinn Fein vote in Northern Ireland is between 70,000 and 120,000. It has not changed, and I see no reason to expect a massive change, unless the SDLP collapses, in which case one would expect the Sinn Fein to increase to its potential maximum of 150,000 or 160,000. But that would happen whether or not we had passed the Bill.
      The Sinn Fein vote does not depend only on personation. We are told that one fifth of the Sinn Fein votes were personated votes. I believe that the proportion was much less, but I believe that the hard core Sinn Fein vote will remain and will fluctuate only according to the candidate or issues and the feeling in the country at election time.
      We say that three years is long enough for an experimental period. Indeed, it may be too long for some of us folk who will have to bear the brunt of the experiment, but we are prepared to give it three years, in the hope that after that time the Government will take careful note of what has happened and will carry out a review and introduce effective legislation.
      I do not doubt that the experience will teach us a few lessons, but the Government have much more to learn than we have. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will ensure that he and his officials are assiduous in the learning process.
      The Bill was produced by people who thought that they knew about personation, but they have never learnt about

      609
      it at first hand. They have to go through a learning process, absorb lessons and translate them into effective legislation. I hope that after the local government, Assembly and parliamentary elections, the Government will look at what has been said in the debate. We cannot afford to have ineffective legislation. We must have a law to stop the massive personation that has taken place.
      Even if personation produced not one fifth, but only one tenth of Sinn Fein's votes, which is probably closer to the mark, it is still massive personation. It proves what tremendous and willing support Sinn Fein receives. If it did not have that support, the terrorism would not succeed. The terrorism, the violence and the kneecapping—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. the hon. Gentleman is straying from the new clause again. I hope that he will address his remarks to the time factor, which is what the debate is about.
      Mr. Ross: I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the Government will go through a learning process during the three years. I hope that the lessons will be learnt so that when officials put legislation before Ministers next time, not only will they have framed it better, but the Ministers will cast a more critical eye over it.
      I am worried. The legislation will cause great difficulties for the honest and some difficulties, but not sufficient, for the wicked. The period of three years is more than enough to assess the Bill's shortcomings in full and to ensure that that which follows is effective, workable and practical and will be praised instead of condemned, not only by my hon. Friends but by those who will have to live and operate within that framework of the law in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: We seem to have rehearsed most of the arguments during the debates that have taken place in the House on this subject. Therefore, I address myself briefly to the new clause which was moved by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
      The clause certainly has reason on its side. Some of us might consider it to be over-generous, in that our conviction throughout the debates has been that the Bill, which started slowly in the Government's mind some two years ago, almost seemed to be forgotten, and then was suddenly rushed upon us and had to be put through the House post haste. The unnecessary rush on the part of the Government brought with it some unfortunate wording which the Government have felt unable to change. The consequence of that is that we shall have, at the end of the day, an Act which will not work.
      The Act will not work, because the fear that causes presiding officers to ignore personation will be the same when the Bill is on the statute book. Those presiding officers are aware of personation. They know that it is taking place under the existing law in Northern Ireland. The prescribed documents suggested by the Minister in the Bill will not provide them with evidence that they did not have before. Those officers see the faces before them. The problem has always been that they are afraid to act. Therefore, the Act will fail to curb the personation and vote-stealing of Sinn Fein.
      I do not doubt for one moment the Government's purpose, motivation and intent. They wish to curb personation, and everyone in the House would wish to curb personation. But the Bill will not do that. The need
      610
      will still arise. After the May local government elections, we shall find that personation is still taking place. But we shall find out much more than that. We shall find out that many hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland, who normally come out rightly and genuinely and sincerely to cast their vote, will have been disenfranchised.
      That being the case, I know that the Minister, who is a fair-minded man, will realise at once that this Bill was hasty, ill-prepared and must be removed from the statute book and replaced, if necessary, by some other form of legislation.
      Having recognised that a lower poll is caused by the Bill, the Minister will also hear the calls of discrimination that will come from one end of the Province to the other from people who have not been allowed to vote and who believe that they were entitled to do so. That will cast aspersions on the authorities who have been conducting the election and it will cast doubt on the result of the election.
      The third thing that the Minister may see—I hope he does not, but knowing the temper in some areas of Northern Ireland I fear that he may — is that the legislation will cause some sort of unrest, perhaps disorder.
      Taking those three consequences of the legislation together, I believe that the Minister will be forced, after just the first election, to think again. The May election will be held under the obnoxious single transferable vote system, under which people may have to list candidates from first to twelfth in order of preference. The Minister may think that that is the cause of the discontent. He may want to try again. I hope that he will not, but, if he does. the new clause gives him the opportunity to do so.
      11 pm
      I have no reluctance in supporting the new clause. I trust that the Minister will scrutinise closely what happens on 15 May 1985 and will then not be reluctant to admit that the legislation was wrong. Being the man that he is, I know that he will be prepared to admit it. By then, the case will have been proved.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: I hope—admittedly without much faith— that the Government will be sympathetic towards the new clause. In about three minutes I should like to adduce three advantages that would flow from accepting it.
      First, if it be true — as has been said by hon. Gentlemen representing Northern Ireland constituencies —that the measure will not work, a time limit upon it will be of value because it would then expire and something else could replace it.
      Secondly, a limit upon the duration of the measure will give time for a single identity document to be produced for all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. I shall not repeat the arguments that I presented at an earlier stage of the passage of the Bill, I said that such a document would not be available overnight, but a single identity document for all the inhabitants of this country could certainly be made available within a period of three years to replace — if the measure were to be retained — the array of documents now listed in amendment No. 5.
      Thirdly, if it be found after three years that the measure is not necessary or that a different measure is required,

      611
      such legislation could be incorporated in amendments to the Representation of the People Act, and applied to the United Kingdom as a whole.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: With my Ulster Unionist colleagues, I trust that it win be possible to include new clause 1 in the Bill. It is widely accepted that massive personation is practised by Sinn Fein and has distorted election results in the past. To permit that dishonest practice to continue to influence future results could threaten and bring into disrepute the whole democratic process in Northern Ireland.
      I do not believe that the Bill will have much effect in preventing Sinn Fein from attempting to personate in the future. As has been clearly established, personation is widely practised in the nationalist and republican areas of Northern Ireland. The same political activists will test the new legislation. There is no doubt about that. That is why the Bill in its present form should not be permitted to last for more than three years. We hope that changes that we have advised will be made then.
      The Bill is an attempt to correct public impressions nationally and internationally which have been created by the large numbers of votes that have been cast for Sinn Fein. It can also be seen as an attempt to identify more clearly in future elections the true number of voters who, by supporting Sinn Fein, encourage the murder and maiming of members of our security forces, and as an attempt to ensure that all possible votes can be cast for the SDLP rather than stolen and cast for Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein voters do not have to pull a trigger or detonate a land mine. Their votes approve past murders and bombings, encourage future murders of innocent Protestant farmers and innocent Protestants in their place of worship and contribute to higher unemployment by the bombing of economic targets.
      To ensure a fair opportunity for legitimate voters to cast their votes in elections, it is sad that Northern Ireland is being treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, despite the fact that attention has been drawn to suspected personation in Great Britain by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). We Ulster Unionists have nothing to gain from the Bill. Indeed, some of us could lose as a result of voters being required to present evidence for qualification to vote. It is quite likely that that will deter many from voting.
      It is reasonable and sensible that the Act should cease to have effect three years after it takes effect. That time will allow it to be applied to future district council elections and possibly future Westminster elections. The results of those elections should provide adequate information for analysis. In the interests of maintaining a fair democratic process, there should be a review after no more than three years. Such a review would permit the Government to include the advice already given by Ulster Unionists, which has not been included in the Bill. As usual, time will prove us and our advice right. That has often happened before. I do not doubt that, if a review is granted, the advice that we have offered today will be included and applied to the United Kingdom as a whole. I support new clause 1 and regret that an identity card with a photograph is not listed as a prescribed document.
      Rev. William McCrea: There have been clear expressions of dissatisfaction with the Bill. Clear
      612
      misgivings have been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members and many commentators. They do not believe that it is practical or that it will work as desired. I have listened carefully to the arguments in favour of the Bill that have been presented by the Secretary of State and Ministers, and I shall continue to do so until the House divides. I fear that they are the only people who believe that this legislation will be a suitable way to stop vote-stealing. Few hon. Members who have spoken have expressed satisfaction with the legislation. Those hon. Members who have listened to the debate perceive that there are many defects in it.
      It is only proper that we state once again that the purpose of the Bill is honourable. I have no doubt about the sincerity of the Secretary of State and his Ministers who are suggesting legislation to deal with personation or vote-stealing. All have clearly stated that the purpose of the Bill is to stop vote-stealing, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said on several occasions, the very opposite could be the result when, at the end of the day, the votes have been cast. Honest, decent citizens may be hindered in the free exercise of their vote, and the result of the election may be adversely affected. Rather than stopping Sinn Fein from getting its results in the election, it may be found by one party that the new legislation will work in Sinn Fein's favour, and many honest, decent citizens will have had further impediments put in their way.
      Sinn Fein is a very committed group of people. As has been said, they are prepared to spend 20 years in a prison cell for committing murder. What is to stop them from trying to steal votes next election day? However, other parties, which seek an honourable and decent way to encourage people to exercise their vote, may find that people who remember facing an election every year in Northern Ireland, will become fed up with the measures in the legislation that will probably be voted through this evening.
      The legislation will be voted through even though most of those who will vote for it will not have listened to any argument from the Ulster Unionists or the Democratic Unionists, because they were not here to listen to them.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is not here.
      Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
      Therefore, hon. Members cannot vote with a clear conscience and say that they have listened to the arguments and, with a free and open mind, made a decision. This legislation has been decided by the Government for good or ill, for the people of Northern Ireland, whether or not it is the proper way to carry out the legislative process in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it is.
      What voice is the Minister listening to? He has listened to what has been said, but not to many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, because only a few of them are here or have spoken through the passage of the Bill. He has not listened to many of the Liberal or SDP Members, because their Benches are completely empty. As to listening to any argument on the matter from Her Majesty's Opposition, the lonely figure sitting on his own on the Opposition Front Bench proves the interest that they have in whether the proper exercise of the vote in Northern Ireland will be

      613
      hindered by the legislation. The absence of Opposition Members demonstrates clearly that they could not care less.
      11.15 pm
      So I ask the simple question: to whom is the Minister listening? Of course, we are told that one of the parties that the legislation is designed to help is the SDLP. If that was really felt to be so—because certainly it was not in the interests of the Unionist parties that the legislation was introduced—one would have expected to see the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in his place. However, on the numerous occasions that we have discussed these matters he has not found it interesting enough to be here. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is no need for him to be here, because the legislation will be put through the House in any event, to save his neck, so he can go somewhere else to do something else and not bother to be here to listen to our debates.
      Mr. Beggs rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is about to say why he feels that the legislation should cease to have effect after three years.
      Rev. William McCrea: I thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One reason is that no' one is interested in it. That, as I have pointed out, is demonstrated by the absence of right hon. and hon. Members from the debate. Indeed, it is one reason why the legislation should not be passed at all. In my view, three years is too long. I should be delighted, as, I am sure, would other hon. Members of the Unionist family, if the Minister said that, having listened to the argument and the complete dissatisfaction expressed by a majority of the right hon. and hon. Members present, he had had second thoughts and no longer wanted to push through the legislation. However, that is too much to ask.
      The proposed new clause is a reasonable one if the Minister is going ahead with the legislation because, if it is seen not to be working, it will have to be changed. The amendment will give the Minister a way out, and he will need it. The legislation will prove to have been a folly and an embarrassment to the occupant of his office possibly at the end of one year, let alone three.
      For all those reasons, I support the new clause.
      Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I have considered this matter carefully. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have attended all these debates in Committee. I have always been troubled by personation, because it has occurred in Leicester, East.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I am tempted by the new clause. It proposes rather a short life for the legislation, but it is still long enough for hon. Members to study the results of the local government elections coming up in May, the results of any Stormont elections and, as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) pointed out, the results, possibly, of a general election. We could all then get round a table and decide whether the legislation had cut out personation. My opinion is that it will cut out personation at a stroke. I appreciate that some hon. Members, especially those representing the Official Unionist party, have said that they see many people being denied the right to vote. That remains to be seen. It has been recommended
      614
      that the official poll card should have set out upon it all the requirements, inculding documents that should be taken to the polling station. If electors adhered to the requirements, I am certain that the right people would come forward to vote. That could be assessed after three years had passed, and I think that that period would be a satisfactory one in which to determine whether the number of votes cast had declined. I hope that there is a decline in certain votes in Leicester, East but that does not include my own.
      The electors need to know what is required when they go to the polling stations and thee should be one voting requirement. This is vital. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) talked about the single transferable vote, which, thank goodness, we do not have in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      The best requirement is an identity card. The entire United Kingdom should have one form of identity card. That would cut out a great deal of personation. When three years have passed, I hope that those who represent constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales will be able to persuade the Government that the issuing of identity cards should be considered carefully. If they were issued, we could end personation, which is countrywide, at a stroke. Much of what we have learnt in discussing the Bill can be incorporated in the Representation of the People Bill, which will come before us on Monday. I regret that that Bill did not precede this one.
      Mr. Stuart Bell: It is always a great pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has said, it is a pity that more hon. Members are not in their places to listen to an interesting and deep debate on an extremely important subject. Its importance lies in the constitutional issues that are raised by the new clause. The constitutional implications will not have escaped the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) or the Minister. Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successor. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a three-year limitation clause in a measure of this nature. If the serious consequences which have been mentioned were to come about, Parliament could introduce new legislation. I am not entirely sure whether the comments of the right hon. Member for South Down reflected upon the competence of the Government, or that of a future Government, to alter this legislation, when enacted, if there were the consequences to which hon. Members have alluded.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it the Opposition's position that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 should have been a permanent Act with no terminal date?
      Mr. Bell: I anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman would mention that Act, which touches upon civil rights.
      Mr. Powell: Does this Bill not do so?
      Mr. Bell: The Bill touches on civil rights, but it cannot be equated with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 or the Act, which will have to be reviewed shortly, on the use of the Diplock courts. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 and the legislation that provides the Diplock courts relate to fundamental human rights, and while the Bill touches

      615
      on human rights I am not entirely sure that it does so to such an extent that a three-year limitation should be written into the Bill.
      The Bill should stay as it is and should not be amended by the new clause. There will be district elections next May in Northern Ireland and eventually there will be a general election. I cannot anticipate that a general election will take place before three years have passed. Those two elections may involve too short a period to test fully the purposes behind the Bill and the reasons why identity must be established before one can vote in Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has demonstrated his knowledge of voting in Northern Ireland, and of election registers and how they are kept. He mentioned a point raised by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that the Sinn Fein vote, if one goes back to 1921, rises and falls within bands and that the vote at the last election was not unusual. He used that argument to show that the Bill might be ill-conceived and unnecessary. The Opposition take a different view. We believe that if we oppose personation we must support the Bill. That is why we do not support the new clause.
      The right hon. Member for South Down reminded me of a short story by Anton Chekhov called "The Three Years" which end with the phrase:
      "In search of truth, a man makes two steps forward and one step back. Suffering mistakes and the weariness of life thrusts him back, but the search for truth drives him on and on".
      We shall always seek the truth in this House, and in relation to the three years the Bill is better as it stands.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed that those who know nothing, practically, about elections in Northern Ireland, who have never stood at an election in Northern Ireland and who do not know the conditions of electioneering there, seem to know more about how elections should be organised than those who have practical experience.
      The House should be interested in giving every possible legitimate voter the right to cast a vote. If democracy is to be maintained in the face of the vicious terrorist attacks by the IRA we must ensure that the people believe in the democratic system. There is only one way to exercise that democratic system — by the vote. I am amazed that some do not regard the right to vote as a basic human right. It is one of the most basic fundamentals of democracy. My right to vote as a legitimate voter should be safeguarded. But some put that right on a different level.
      If the House were passing legislation tonight to do for the whole of the United Kingdom what it is doing for Northern Ireland, the Chamber would be packed. Hon. Members on all sides would say that we were trying to hinder or stop people from voting. They would say that we were denying the right of people to vote. But since we are legislating for Northern Ireland it does not matter and hon. Members are not concerned.
      We have an assurance from the Minister that he will give the people time to operate the system. Shall we have the same restricted hours in Northern Ireland for our elections? Shall we have the time to lengthen the voting procedure?
      It is amazing that the Minister thinks that the current regulations are operated in the polling booths. I understand that the presiding officer has the duty, according to the law, to ask for the name and address of the person who approaches the officials to get a voting slip. Anyone who
      616
      knows anything about electioneering in Northern Ireland knows that people come to vote with a polling card. That polling card is taken, and the name is looked up on the polling list and marked off. That is done hundreds and hundreds of times on polling day, and everyone knows that. I wonder how many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland were ever asked their name at a polling booth.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will address himself to the new clause we are discussing. The hon. Member is having another go at making a Second Reading speech.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is amazing. We have had a wide debate, and I have listened with great care to other hon. Members make the points that I am now making. Is there, with respect, some restriction tonight preventing me from taking part in this debate while other hon. Members can make their speeches without any interjection from the Chair?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I invite the hon. Member, as I have invited a number of hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, to address himself to the new clause that is before us, which deals with the duration of this legislation. I am sure that the hon. Member will address himself to that subject.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am seeking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to build up a case for why the new clause should be accepted by the House. I am trying to point out to the House, as best I can, what happens in Northern Ireland elections. We shall have a complete change of procedure. Those who come to the polling booth will have to come armed with a particular document. I still do not understand what happens to that document in the polling booth. The Secretary of State has made many statements about what will happen. I do not know whether that document will be the decisive document, whether the presiding officer will still make his decision without reference to the document or whether the address of the document really matters. I do know that the whole voting procedure will be seriously delayed and that many legitimate voters who come to vote will be dismayed by the fact that obstacles will be set in their way.
      It is no use hon. Members thinking that that will not happen. Do hon. Members really think that Northern Ireland voters are different from anyone else in the rest of the United Kingdom? When the Northern Ireland people come to the polling booth, they come to vote. After this Bill is passed in this House, receives approval in the other place and is given the Royal Assent, this legislation will be forgotten until election day. Then there will be the furore of questions: Do I have the documents? Where are they?
      New clause 1 contains a reasonable proposal. We talk about the legislation applying immediately after it is passed. Why not say that in three years it should be completely reconsidered? We have been told that we are in uncharted waters. Surely, having floated over those waters, we will be better able to chart them properly. Various hon. Members proposed what the Minister said were good ideas. Those good ideas are now lost. Will

      617
      those proposals be written into the legislation at some future time? In three years, will we redraft the whole of this legislation?
      The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who has just joined us—there were some remarks about why he was not present—proposed that, in future, instead of the head of the house signing the document for all in the house so that their names could be put on the register, everybody should sign his name and write his date of birth. That would be done in duplicate. The presiding officer would have a copy. A person would be asked, "What is your name? What is your date of birth?" and told to sign his name. The presiding officer would know then who that person was. But that would all be forgotten. People would not come back and do that.
      No one has stood up in this House and said that he wants to see personation. We are all against it. Everyone in the House believes in the principle of the Bill, but we do not believe that the Bill will achieve the desired result. If I thought that the Bill would achieve it, I would not be taking part in the debate; I would be happy to let it go through. The Bill will do grave damage to legitimate voters wanting to vote in Northern Ireland. It is the hon. Members in this House and our council colleagues who will bear the burden and heat of the day when the election day comes.
      We are asking the Government to meet us and agree that after three years the whole procedure will be redrafted, with the benefit of experience and added wisdom. Is that an unfair request to make? The majority of hon. Members from Northern Ireland are asking that tonight. It is reasonable and fair that the Minister and the Government should meet us on the matter.
      What worries me is that the Government, by presenting the Bill in its present form, have apparently not made themselves acquainted with the practicalities of carrying out the law on polling day. I hope that the Minister will bring us good news tonight. I hope that he will tell us that the hours are to be lengthened, and that the Government will give us the same hours for the local elections in Northern Ireland as we have for elections to this House. I hope that he will say that there will be no curtailment of the hours, and that people may have adequate time.
      There are many matters in the Bill that will not be helpful, and I ask the Government to agree to look at the legislation after three years. We have renewals in regard to many other important matters of 'law in Northern Ireland. Why can we not have a new Bill presented which will embody the proposals which have been made in this House? I plead with the Minister to meet the representations which have been made to him by the people on the ground who will have to work the legislation if it is passed by this House.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have listened very carefully to the arguments on the new clause. Having considered them, it is now my duty to explain why the Government do not feel able to accept the new clause.
      In no sense can the Government be accused, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested, of engaging in hasty or ill-considered legislation on this matter. As he knows, as the House knows, and as every constitutional party in Northern Ireland knows, these proposals have been under consideration since the beginning of 1982, there have been representations about
      618.
      them from the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and the Government very carefully considered the principles on which the legislation should be based before introducing it to the House.
      Before turning to the three main reasons why I feel that the Government cannot accept the new clause, perhaps I may rebut the point, made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), that this is in any sense an inexpensive, or a cheap, trial in Northern Ireland of something that is to be applied more widely in the United Kingdom in due course.
      Northern Ireland is where the problem of personation exists. It exists in a very serious way, as was borne in on the Government by representations from all the constitutional parties there. During the progress of the Bill through the House I have said how much I regret the necessity for treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is where the problem exists and where action has to be taken to preserve the integrity of the electoral process.
      The right hon. Gentleman gave as his reason for introducing the new clause that it would make it easier for the Secretary of State to make amendments if that proved necessary or desirable in the light of experience. It is clear from the approach of the right hon. Gentleman and others that they had substantial amendments in mind which would alter the basis of the legislation. I shall outline to the House three reasons why I should be very reluctant indeed to go down that road.
      As a matter of principle, I do not believe that the House would or should agree to frame or enact legislation on the assumption that it may well fail to achieve its intended objective. When I spoke in earlier debates on the Bill about going into uncharted waters or unknown territory, I was talking about the effects of the Bill on polling station procedures as we have known them. I have, however, no doubt whatsoever about the effect of the Bill on personation. In my view, which has remained unchanged throughout the passage of the Bill, the combined effects of clauses 1 and 3 provide the most effective deterrent against widespread organised personation that it is possible to devise in the circumstances facing us and within the time scale that we have if we are to deal with this before the local government elections in May next year.
      Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister implying that if the time scale were longer he would take a different view? If not, what is he implying?
      Mr. Scott: I am not saying that at all. I am saying that if, in addition to the circumstances facing us, there was another constraint that the Government had to bear in mind it was the necessity to take action by May 1985.
      I acknowledge, of course—I thought that this point was dealt with very well by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) — that two of the most important pieces of legislation applying in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Act, which provides for the system of direct rule, and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act—are temporary in nature, as indeed is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act which applies throughout the kingdom. In all those cases, however, because of the exceptional nature of the legislation and the impact on human rights, Parliament decided that the legislation should be subject to regular renewal in the hope that the circumstances

      619
      which made it necessary would go away. But that is a very different matter from enshrining in statute, by implication, the sentiment that a particular measure is probably flawed in principle and that provision must therefore be made for improvement in subsequent legislation.
      Thirdly, on a purely practical note, the aspect of the Bill which it has become clear from our discussions is most likely to require examination as it works out in practice is the list of prescribed documents. If, through experience and reflection, it appears that certain documents should be added to or substracted from the list, or if in due course it is decided to go for a single document, the Bill provides that that can be achieved by means of statutory instruments. Indeed, that was one of the ideas put forward by the right hon. Member for South Down in Committee.
      I cannot accept, however, that the principles and purposes of the Bill are unsound or likely to be rendered obsolete within the kind of time scale envisaged by the new clause. I therefore recommend that the House reject the new clause.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister took exception to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that the Bill had been drafted in haste and that the Government had acted in haste and without consultation. He will know, however, that although consultations began early in 1982 they came to a sticky end long before the elections.
      On the not inappropriate date of 12 July 1982 the former Secretary of State wrote to me:
      "I therefore intend to leave matters as they are at present".
      And so they remained until the Gracious Speech announced that this Bill was to be bounced upon us. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to mislead the House, but it is clearly wrong to suggest that consultation had been continuous when, in fact, there was consultation for a few months and then nothing further until the Gracious Speech and the introduction of the Bill.
      Mr. Scott: That is not true. Apart from having had representations from the Ulster Unionist party after the general election in 1983, it was made clear on other occasions that consultations were continuing. I answered a parliamentary question on the matter earlier this year and made it clear that the Government were still considering which measures they might take to counter personation, including the introduction of a Bill.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Molyneaux: I agree that ideas were exchanged occasionally. There was a further letter from the former Secretary of State on 10 March 1983, but it did not take us far because he proceeded to list mainly the objections and difficulties in proceeding as he originally intended. That does not mean consultation within my meaning of the term.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that consultations effectively stopped in 1982?
      Mr. Molyneaux: That was the point that I attempted to make. Apart from the occasional mention of the problem, there was no consultation in the sense that ideas were put to parties or a consultative process was engaged in in a meaningful way in the interval.
      The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred to other items of legislation with a terminal date,
      620
      and sought to show that they were different because they affected human rights. It is true that they affect the human rights of some people, but the Bill affects the basic human rights of all. Like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) I cannot accept that the right to vote unhindered is not one of the most basic human rights of all.
      To be fair to the Government, they never concealed their doubts about the measure. The Minister has shown that he is aware of its difficulties and weaknesses. During previous debates he has made it clear that he is willing to reconsider and re-examine the legislation. It does not, therefore, seem unreasonable to hope even at this late hour —both chronologically and in our discussions—that the Minister will listen to our pleas and welcome the assistance that we are attempting to offer him by providing a way out in the new clause.
      Three years is a reasonable period. It will take some time after the elections in May 1985 to evaluate the results and the voting patterns. That is important. If the Government feel that it could be done in a shorter period, we would offer no objections. Another time factor is involved with the drafting and processing of the Bill. It has emerged in previous debates that similar problems of vote-stealing have occurred in England. We have evidence that that has appeared fairly significantly in England. The Minister, and other Ministers, have said that they do not believe that because the Home Office does not know about it. Unless my calculations are far out, in the light of what many hon. Members who represent English constituencies have said, I shall be surprised if the Home Office is not made aware of those difficulties within the next three years.
      Therefore, I would have thought that three years would be an appropriate period. That also raises the question of who urged the Northern Ireland Office to make haste and to take such speedy action in Northern Ireland. It is true that many Northern Ireland parties were aware of the vote-stealing activities of Sinn Fein, but we did not lose our heads over it. We had been through the problems before and managed to contain it.
      One asks what were the sources of the pressure that forced or persuaded the Government into a Bill with such haste. Like the Government, those sources felt that they needed more time because they have not been enthusiastic in helping the rest of us make the Bill a little more workable.
      We have listed the defects, and this is not the occasion to restate them. The Government admit that they are sailing in uncharted waters. We have put down numerous marker buoys to assist the Government and we trust that they will make use of those devices.
      We hope that the Government and those who have to implement the legislation and try to make the mechanism work will, in due course, be able to report their conclusions to us. Even at this late stage we are offering the Government a way out. Like them, we shall be watching the working of all the devices.
      I make the Minister a genuine and sincere offer—we are prepared to assist him in monitoring all this legislation for the next three years, and then to return and co-operate with him or his successor in framing a new Bill if that proves necessary. If the Minister maintains that he cannot concede and accept our amendment, I have no option but to urge all hon. Members to support the new clause one.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 124.

      Division No. 40]

      [11.51 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Parry, Robert

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

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

      McCrea, Rev William

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      McCusker, Harold

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maginnis, Ken

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholson, J.

      Mr. William Ross and

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. A. Cecil Walker.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Ancram, Michael

      Lester, Jim

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Lilley, Peter

      Bell, Stuart

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Best, Keith

      Lord, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      MacGregor, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Mather, Carol

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Mellor, David

      Conway, Derek

      Merchant, Piers

      Cope, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Moate, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Dover, Den

      Murphy, Christopher

      Durant, Tony

      Newton, Tony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Osborn, Sir John

      Favell, Anthony

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Patchett, Terry

      Forth, Eric

      Pawsey, James

      Fox, Marcus

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Freeman, Roger

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gale, Roger

      Powley, John

      Galley, Roy

      Raffan, Keith

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Gregory, Conal

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Ground, Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Scott, Nicholas

      Harvey, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hawksley, Warren

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hayes, J.

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Spencer, Derek

      Hickmet, Richard

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Holt, Richard

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

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

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hume, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Jackson, Robert

      Tracey, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Walden, George

      Kennedy, Charles

      Wallace, James

      Key, Robert

      Waller, Gary

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Wheeler, John

      Lang, Ian

      Whitney, Raymond

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Wilkinson, John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Wolfson, Mark

      622

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. John Major and

      Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      VOTERS TO PRODUCE PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'prescribed' and insert 'specified'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2 to 7.
      Mr. Scott: In Committee on 28 November, I undertook, in reply to an amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), to bring forward on Report a group of amendments to incorporate in the body of the Bill the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, setting out the list of documents from which a voter will be required to produce one to obtain a ballot paper from a presiding officer or clerk.
      The amendments seek to fulfil that undertaking, and I will explain why the Government believe that the list should consist of the documents set out in amendment No. 5.
      We have looked closely at the reservations expressed in the House by a number of right hon. and hon. Members about the documents included in the list. I accept, as I must, the criticism of the right hon. Member for South Down that there is no document in the list which every person must by law have in his possession; there is no such document in the United Kingdom. I accept that each of the documents listed is not wholly satisfactory for the purpose of relating the person producing the document to the person described in the electoral register.
      We have made it clear to the House from the outset that any list cannot be foolproof, but, bearing in mind the criteria that the documents should all be official documents issued by the Government or Government agencies, and that the list should not be drawn so tightly that any group of qualified electors is effectively disfranchised, or so widely that it would be simple for large numbers of documents to be obtained easily or be easily forged, I remain of the view that at least until we have the benefit of practical experience, the list of documents, specified in the amendment is right. If any difficulties subsequently arise in connection with any particular document, the new paragraph of rule 37 will permit the list to be varied as appropriate.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) said that the medical card alone could suffice as the specified document, because it is the only document on the list to which every elector is entitled and which can be obtained free of charge. I considered that idea carefully, because it has some attractions, but the essence of the Government's approach is that there should be the option to produce one of a range of documents, to make it easier for legitimate electors to have one of the documents easily available for production to the clerk or presiding officer.
      Furthermore, if only one document were specified the opportunity would be removed for a voter to produce and for the presiding officer to consider another specified document in those cases where the first document

      623
      produced a reasonable doubt in the mind of the presiding officer that the voter was the person on the electoral roll who he claimed to be.
      The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made a particular point about the inclusion of a certified copy or extract of an entry of marriage. In view of the concern that he has expressed I should explain why we have nevertheless decided to include it in the form now before the House.
      The document has been included to provide for the case of a woman who has registered in her maiden name and who subsequently married and, as a result of her marriage, no longer possesses any of the other specified documents in her maiden name. The provision has been drafted so that it includes women who might marry at any time during the period of registration—July to mid-September—and so that it continues to apply until the latest possible date in the life of the register bearing the woman's maiden name. The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised that point. That date will be 15 February in the year two years on from the year of the compilation of the register. That is why th provision applies to women married within two years ending with the day of the poll concerned.
      The amendment incorporates in the Bill an amendable list of specified documents as a result of an undertaking that I gave. We have sought to keep the balance between disfranchising genuine electors and yet inhibiting and deterring those who would corrupt the electoral process. We have listened carefully to the views and concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members and have taken them into account in drafting the amendment. I urge the House to accept it.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Bill will certainly leave the House the better for the insertion in it of the crucial documents in proper terms instead of by a sidelong reference, as was the original form of the Bill, to documents that would be prescribed in regulations which the House had not yet seen. Certainly the necessity of throwing into proper legislative form the documents referred to in the notes on clauses which were available to hon. Members has resulted in a considerable tightening and improvement of the definitions.
      I welcome the fact that the visitor's passport appears to have disappeared, having made a fleeting apparition in the notes on clauses. There is also undoubtedly an improvement, to which the Minister has just referred, in the opportunity for a married woman validly to produce as a specified document her marriage certificate. That reminds me that the description of the certificate is, at any rate, more comprehensive and accurate than it was in the form in which we were previously considering it.
      However, two points in the clause as drawn may raise a query. Perhaps the Minister will be able to refer to them when he intervenes. Paragraph (a) deals with the driving licence. In the case of a Great Britain driving licence, the provisional licence appears to be excluded. Perhaps, by some other means, the provisional licence is excluded in the case of the Northern Ireland driving licence. But that does not appear on the face of the amendment. Will the Minister confirm that the provisional driving licence is also excluded, as it should be, in the case of the Northern Ireland driving licence?
      624
      I should be grateful too if the Minister will refer to the last words of his amendment:
      "varying any description of document".
      That appears to be an ambiguous phrase. It might appear to mean varying the description given in this amendment of the identical document. That is, it would be the same document but differently described from the way in which it is described here. That seems a rather curious provision to make. One would have supposed that we would ensure that we had the definition right in inserting the documents in the Bill as we are doing now. On the other hand, if it means varying the description of documents that can be used for this purpose, that point is surely covered already by the words "adding or deleting documents". I hope that when the Minister replies he may be able to clear up those two minor points of explanation.
      The Bill, however, is certainly more satisfactory for carrying upon the face of it, for those who will use it and interpret it, the documents that for the present are to be those the production of at least one of which is to be a condition of exercising the franchise in Northern Ireland.
      I welcome the two concessions that the Government have made within the scope of the amendment. I hope that I may take the opportunity to refer to the patience with which the Minister has, throughout the proceedings on the Bill, listened to the arguments that have been put. Even if that patience sometimes appeared to be linked with obduracy, nevertheless it was a patience that the Committee and the House appreciated.
      Mr. Scott: I should like to deal with the three points raised by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). First, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to understand, the amendment includes a United Kingdom visitor's passport. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the driving licence and the exclusion of the Northern Ireland provisional licence from the amendment. It is excluded because under article 12 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 only full licences can be issued. The need to include a power to vary the description of documents is very much a longstop provision. It was included in case the law under which the document was issued were to be amended, in which case the description might have to be altered.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'prescribed' and insert 'specified'.
      No. 3, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'prescribed' and insert 'specified'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'prescribed' and insert 'specified'.—[Mr. Scott.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 2, line 5, at end insert —
      (1DA) For the purposes of this rule a specified document is one which for the time being falls within the following list:—

      (a) a current licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (excluding a provisional licence), or under Article 12 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or any corresponding enactment for the time being in force;

      (b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Government of the Republic of Ireland;

      (c) a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland;

      (d) a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services;

      625

      (e) a certified copy, or extract, of an entry of marriage issued by a Registrar General, where the voter producing the copy or extract is a woman married within the period of two years ending with the day of the poll concerned.

      In sub-paragraph (e) above "a Registrar General" means the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland.
      (1DB) Regulations may make provision varying the list in paragraph (1DA) above (whether by adding or deleting documents or varying any description of document): .—[Mr. Scott.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 4.

      Division No. 41]

      [12.14 am

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Bell, Stuart

      MacGregor, John

      Best, Keith

      Major, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Mather, Carol

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Merchant, Piers

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Cope, John

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Moate, Roger

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Murphy, Christopher

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Newton, Tony

      Dover, Den

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Durant, Tony

      Osborn, Sir John

      Favell, Anthony

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Pawsey, James

      Forth, Eric

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Fox, Marcus

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Freeman, Roger

      Powley, John

      Gale, Roger

      Raffan, Keith

      Galley, Roy

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Gregory, Conal

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Ground, Patrick

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Harvey, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hawksley, Warren

      Spencer, Derek

      Hayes, J.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Stern, Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Holt, Richard

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

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

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Hume, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Walden, George

      Jackson, Robert

      Waller, Gary

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Wheeler, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Wilkinson, John

      Lang, Ian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Wood, Timothy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Yeo, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Lester, Jim

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

      Lord, Michael

      Mr. Michael Neubert.

      McCrindle, Robert

      NOES

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Parry, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Patchett, Terry

      Mr. Peter Robinson and

      Skinner. Dennis

      Mr. William McCrea.

      Question accordingly agreed to

    Clause 3

      OFFENCES RELATING TO PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 4, line 2 leave out
      'document prescribed for the purposes of rules 37 to 40',
      and insert
      'specified document within the meaning of rule 37'.
      No. 7, in page 4, line 6 leave out from 'a' to 'that' in line 8 and insert
      'specified document within the meaning of that rule which either falsely bears the name of the person in possession or does not bear'.—[Mr. Scott.]
      12.23 am
      Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Over recent weeks, a considerable amount of parliamentary time has been devoted to this important Bill. I welcome that, because it seeks to deal with a significant problem in Northern Ireland. During our debates, the House and the Committee have been united in support of the aims that underline the Bill. I believe that it is widely accepted both in the House and in Northern Ireland that in recent years personation has become a substantially greater problem. The objective of the Bill and of the Government is to protect the right to vote by diminishing as far as possible the opportunities for personation at elections in Northern Ireland.
      I do not think that there is any dispute about the desirability of that aim. Experience in recent elections—and I have the general election in June 1983 especially in mind—has demonstrated that the existing legislation is inadequate to deal with the scale of the problem as it now confronts us. That legislation was never designed to withstand the pressures to which it is now subjected.
      One of the fundamental principles in our electoral system in the United Kingdom to which the Government attach considerable weight is that it should be as easy as possible for the legitimate elector to cast his vote. That principle is continued in the Bill. In the debates on the Bill, a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), have drawn attention consistently to this important requirement. We want to encourage the legitimate voter and to discourage the vote stealer. The legitimate voter, no less that the democratic process as a whole, is entitled to protection from those bent on abuse.
      A good deal of time in Committee was devoted to the presiding officers' discretion. I understand and listened carefully to the case for giving wide discretion and not making the production of documents mandatory. This is a matter of judgment, but, having considered it again, I am firmly of the view that it would be the wrong course. No system that we introduce will be perfect, but there is a much greater chance of uniformity of practice if presiding officers are given minimum discretion in this sensitive area. Although I accept that in many parts of Northern Ireland electoral abuse may not be a serious problem, I do not believe that the electorate as a whole could have confidence in a system which conferred wide discretion on presiding officers.
      The House will not want me to go over the ground that we have just covered on Report about the list of the documents which may be produced to obtain a ballot

      627
      paper. But the House will wish to be reminded that the Government are determined to see the widest possible publicity given in the run-up to the elections in May next year to encourage electors to understand that they will have to produce one of these documents to be able to vote. The documents will, as I undertook at an earlier stage, be clearly listed on the poll card for these elections. I appeal to and urge the political parties to do all that they can to tell their supporters about the new arrangements.
      Mr. William Ross: Will there be time between the issuing of poll cards and the election for an elector to get a medical card if he does not have one?
      Mr. Scott: I cannot give that precise undertaking, but, once the publicity has started, it will be possible for anyone who needs a medical card to get it in good time for the May elections. I have to consider the date upon which it is proposed to issue the poll cards to establish whether it will be possible to do that within the time.
      The political parties and the chief electoral officer and his staff jealously guard their independence, and rightly, at election time. But I hope that it will be possible, in coming up to these elections, for the Government, the chief electoral officer and the political parties all to work together to make this attempt to tackle personation in Northern Ireland as effective as possible.
      At this stage, perhaps I might pay tribute to the chief electoral officer and his staff. We should not underestimate their difficult and testing job in Northern Ireland.
      I draw attention to the importance of clause 3, which gives the police the powers that they need to apprehend those seeking to frustrate the key provisions of clause 1. We have sought to strike a balance between giving the police sufficient powers to be effective while keeping those powers in the sensitive and potentially controversial area of elections to the minimum.
      As the House has noted, clauses 1 and 3 need to be read together. In my view, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
      I am grateful for the constructive way in which the House and the Committee have tackled this difficult subject. I understand the concern that has been expressed by Northern Ireland Members and others as I understood the reasons which lay behind the amendments which we debated in Committee. I assure the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that in showing patience and listening carefully there was a genuine effort to determine whether the new ideas which came forward could be incorporated into the Bill to improve it. Ihope that by accepting one of his amendments and introducing a Government amendment on Report in response to that, we have demonstrated that the Government have had an open mind and have treated the arguments on their merits. Having listened to the arguments advanced in debate, the Government remain of the view that, given Northern Ireland circumstances, the approach taken in the Bill is right. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Molyneaux: I confirm what the Minister has said about common ground between us on the Bill's objectives and aims. From the earliest stage of the consultations in July 1982, we made plain our views on the issue when we
      628
      said to the former Secretary of State that our general approach was a wish to see electoral law preserved and enforced but with the minimum divergence of the law in Ulster from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that the Ulster Unionist party has at any time pressed for correction at all costs and at any price. In fairness, I do not think that the Minister has suggested that.
      We agreed that the electoral law should be observed and enforced, and we stressed that there should be the minimum divergence of the law in Northern Ireland from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Over the years we have been consistent in our demand both for uniformity in the making of laws and in their enforcement. For example, before the first elections for the European Assembly in 1979, we asserted that the method of voting should be the same throughout the United Kingdom. We were supported on that occasion by the then Conservative Opposition, who are now in government, when a Division took place. Unfortunately, they have slipped out of the undertaking to ensure uniformity of voting systems for the 1984 European Assembly elections.
      I suspect that the Government—the Prime Minister has said that they are rock firm for the Union—do not have their heart in the Bill. However it is dressed up, it imposes a real handicap on Northern Ireland electors. The divergences and variations might be tolerable if the measures in the Bill as it stands were likely to achieve the purpose that the Government had in mind when they set out on this journey. In the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, they will not be effective. They will fail and they will tend to penalise, for the first time this century, those who wish to influence through the ballot box, and only through the ballot box, the attitudes and policies of Parliament and the Government who result from any general election or, in the next local government elections, influence the choice of the men and women who in councils are closer to the electors than any other tier of elected representatives.
      In recent weeks we have sought to improve the Bill. I have on other occasions paid tribute to the Minister and the Department for his and its willingness to discuss further and more significant changes. We have agreed some improvements but, from the start, we realised that the defects were so fundamental that, short of returning to the drawing board or the drafting table, it would be impossible to produce a measure which could deal effectively with the problem of vote stealing in certain constituencies.
      If there had been more time to consider what was proposed between the point at which the former Secretary of State appeared to give up the struggle and the sudden appearance of the Bill, we could together have produced a workable measure. I regret as much as the Minister the fact we were unable to reach a wider measure of agreement. However, I think that he will accept and understand that the points of difference between us are so great that it makes it impossible for us to do otherwise than oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
      12.35 am
      Mr. Bell: The Official Opposition accept that personation happens in Northern Ireland. That was conceded by all sides and it was right for the Government to introduce the legislation. It was also right to seek to balance the right to vote, but it is not always possible to please every party.

      629
      The Government sought to improve the Bill in Committee. They have listened carefully to the arguments. No Bill is perfect and perhaps this Bill will be reviewed, as suggested tonight. The Bill attempts to eliminate personation in Northern Ireland. It is a step forward. We shall see at the district elections in May whether it is effective. We shall support the Government on the Bill.
      12.36 am
      Mr. William Ross: On more than one occasion the Minister has talked about sailing uncharted waters. He appears to have forgotten that, although the waters are uncharted to him and his officials, they are not to those of us who live in Northern Ireland. If we have not charted the exact waters, we have charted the adjacent waters in detail for many years. We have a fair idea of what the final charts will show. For that reason, we have been unremitting in our opposition to the measure.
      The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who spoke so briefly for the Opposition, said that we cannot expect to please every party. The Bill may please the Conservatives and others in Great Britain, but who does it please in Northern Ireland—that part of the United Kingdom which alone is affected by the Bill? It does not please the Unionists; it does not please the DU party, and I do not know whether it pleases the SDLP. We have not heard sufficient from them to know. No comment has been made by Sinn Fein, which in itself tells a story. Its members do not care two hoots about legislation passed here. They will attempt to carry on in their own merry way.
      It is one thing if legislation does not please everyone, but when it displeases all responsible political opinion in the area affected, that is another matter. Hon. Members should reflect upon that.
      The Bill's real objective is to cut Sinn Fein down to size —its real size—and to ensure that it is always defeated by the SDLP. If that is the intention the Bill is rubbish. In a Catholic area SDLP almost always defeats Sinn Fein. It would be wise for hon. Members to remember that after the last general election a Sinn Fein candidate was returned to this House. About one-third of the votes cast for anti-partition parties went to Sinn Fein. Only by a split vote in West Belfast did a Sinn Fein member win.
      The objective of driving down the Sinn Fein vote is unnecessary and it is unlikely to succeed, because the real Sinn Fein vote is larger than some of us, especially on this side of the Irish sea, wish to admit.
      The real objective should be to expose and isolate the extremists in Northern Ireland and to show the true face of Sinn Fein by having effective legislation. That objective requires us to do two things—first, to show Sinn Fein in its true colours, and, once that happens, the second objective of showing the true size of Sinn Fein will follow naturally. We would be gravely in error if we thought that the mass of the Northern Ireland people believe that terrorism has anything to offer them. If we get Sinn Fein down to its true size and get it to show its true face so that it can no longer hide in the mass of the people, more people will turn against Sinn Fein.
      The Government clearly wish to reveal the true size of Sinn Fein, but their aim will be thwarted so long as there is legislation such as this and so long as they continue to use two differing electoral systems in Northern Ireland and, above all, so long as they continue to use the proportional representation—STV system. That system
      630
      was brought into operation in Northern Ireland to help the so-called moderates such as the Alliance party, but the system helps not just one group but all groups to turn their minority vote into a quota. If that were not the case, Sinn Fein would not win elections, and the sooner the House and the Government face that reality, the better it will be. Once they face that reality, they will start to proceed down the road they should have taken long ago.
      One can plainly see that this Chamber was not designed with fudged politics in mind. It is not designed with cross benches. It is designed to force people to make a decision —to face each other and argue out a case on the Floor of the House — whether angrily or calmly depends on the issue of the time or the time itself. This country's politics are built purely and simply on forcing people to decide on which side of the divide they stand.
      I have seen many Northern Ireland politicians try to sit on the fence. Sometimes, when they sat down on that fence, they found that it was a great wide hedge. It was not long before the hedge was trampled down, and those politicians found that at its centre, there was a narrow, vicious strip of barbed wire. Usually, when one tries to sit in the middle, the people catch up with one. It is not pleasant whenever the electorate catches up with politicians.
      Whenever we force people to make a real decision, we shall be moving in the right direction. We shall rot do that so long as we allow them to fudge the issue in Northern Ireland by using the STV system or, for that matter, any other proportional representation system of election. Under such system, all groups and sub-groups can find a party that represents their own narrow view. That is not, in the long run, a recipe for calm consideration of the aspects that divide us. It is a recipe for bedlam, as the more, extreme elements always try, and often succeed, to drive out the less extreme.
      If the Government really want to resolve the problem of Sinn Fein and to defeat Sinn Fein, they should go for the simple majority system that brought us all to this House, because, in the long run, that system gives more stability and sense to the elected body than the proportional representation system can ever do. The extremists in Ulster upon which the Sinn Fein—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he must deal with what is in the Bill.
      Mr. Ross: As before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to point out that the Bill will be extended by order to be applied to proportional representation elections at two levels in Northern Ireland — at local level and at Assembly level. Therefore, what we say about proportional representation — [Interruption.] And, of course, to the European election. I was forgetting about that. I dislike the European election so much that I rarely give it any consideration. [Interruption.] I was not standing in that election, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows.
      The House should keep very clearly in mind that this Bill does not apply only to elections to this House; it applies to other elections in Northern Ireland. It should be noted that under the simple majority system, Sinn Fein and other extremist parties have invariably done badly in Northern Ireland.
      There have been many references in the debate to the number of votes cast for Sinn Fein with figures ranging

      631
      from 70,000 to 120,000. If that is translated into the outcome in a PR election, whatever percentage that is of the total vote should be reflected more or less in the seats gained. The local government wards have an effect on that, as do the electoral areas. It was very interesting, whenever we went to the commissioner, at "the inquiry" into ward groupings in Magherafelt, to find that he had made it clear that, if he had known that he was to do the grouping of wards, he would have thought again. He said that the five-to-seven-wards rule in the electoral order in 1983 put him in a straitjacket. If the Minister was getting the same sort of advice on this Bill as he had in relation to the ward groupings—it probably came from the same quarter so he probably was—I can understand now why Sir Frank Harrison said what he did.
      It does not take a substantial minority to get elected under PR; it takes one eighth of the electorate. We shall be back with this sort of legislation for wider areas of the United Kingdom if anything that has been said by English Members in the debate has any relevance to what is happening in this part of the United Kingdom. I view with very grave suspicion a turnout of 96 per cent. I have seen a turnout of 96 per cent. and 97 per cent. occasionally, but it should be realised that it does not happen very often. It can happen only in very favourable circumstances.
      The circumstances are: good organisation, probably a small rural community, popular candidates, fear of the opposition, and a new electoral register. If any one of those items is missing, it is very difficult to get over 90 per cent., let alone 95 per cent. or 96 per cent.
      It should be remembered that in March the register will be six months of age, because it is compiled with the date of 15 September in mind. At the end of its life it will be 18 months old. By that time at least 15 or 16 out of every 1,000 of the electorate will have died, and possibly over 20. That means that at an October election the register will be wildly out of date with very considerable variations from the original. It should be impossible to get 90 per cent. except under the most favourable conditions and the smallest populations.
      The Government have fudged the issue, as they have fudged so many things in Northern Ireland. They are refusing to grasp the nettle and to provide proper means of identification and a proper system of election in Northen Ireland. Until they grasp the nettle and act upon it, we shall continue to have the sort of problem that we have been trying to deal with in the Bill, and which the Bill, despite the Minister's good hopes, will fail to meet.
      12.49 am
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall at once gain the support of the House when I say that I do not intend to speak at any length or to pad out my remarks.
      The House is at least united on one thing — that personation is wrong, that it is cheating and stealing and that action must be taken. The House appears not to agree, however, on the best method of dealing with the problem.
      In my view, the Government have shown a lack of resolve, first, in the fact that the Bill was introduced to assist the SDLP. Let there be no doubt about that. It was introduced to help the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party in the battle for the nationalist vote against Sinn Fein. The Minister should know that the best and perhaps the only way for the SDLP to ensure that it keeps
      632
      its nose ahead of Sinn Fein is properly to enter the democratic process and to take part in democratic politics in Northern Ireland. It will otherwise be seen as a faint, similar product to Sinn Fein and when that product is on sale in Northern Ireland the voters will go for the original product and the SDLP will be left on the shelf.
      Instead of telling the hon. Member for Foyle to stand on his own two feet and take on Sinn Fein, the Minister decided that he would have to do something for him. The Bill is the product of that thought. If the Minister had thought further, he would have realised that the best and most effective action would have been to proscribe Sinn Fein, but he turns away from that and allows the front men for the IRA gunmen to entertain the democratic process and to abuse democracy in Northern Ireland. They are an integral part of the Provisional IRA movement and as much a part of that movement as any IRA commanding officer. Members who care to go to the Library will find a book entitled "Beating the Terrorists?"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Bill is about preventing personation in elections in Northern Ireland. We must not have such a wide debate.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has made it clear throughout the debates on the Bill that the aim of this measure is to deal with Sinn Fein. That is why the Bill was sponsored in the House. Surely in this final stage of the proceedings it is in order for an hon. Member to state his view of that proposition and to comment on what the Minister has said.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have had many debates—on Second Reading, on amendments, on new clauses, and so on. The Third Reading debate is concerned with what is in the Bill and my job is to preserve the proper proceedings of the House.
      Mr. Robinson: I of course accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely point out that the purpose of the Bill is to make more difficult the task of those who would personate, and those whom the Minister recognises as most likely to do that are members of Sinn Fein, who are under the IRA command structure. The best way to achieve that aim is to proscribe them and to put them where they need to be—outside the democratic process —rather than allowing them to abuse it.
      The second way in which the Minister showed his lack of resolve was in relation to the only real solution to the identification problem—purpose-made ID cards. He did not want to go down that road, because he thought that there might be an ulterior motive on the part of those proposing it. He told the House that some people might not want to go and have their ID cards prepared. Those people, of course, are the very people whom the Minister wishes to prevent from personating. But he prefers yet again to run away from the only effective way of dealing with the matter and to propose an unpalatable mish-mash of forms of identification which have little in common with one another and none of which has all the points required—photograph, name, address and, in our view, signature. The prescribed documents are thus a second-rate alternative.
      The Minister again turns his back on the mayhem that will undoubtedly occur on 15 May and on subsequent election days when his plan is put into operation. He has

      633
      thought little about the danger in which he places presiding officers. Ordinary decent voters will bring them prescribed documents, but what will Sinn Fein bring to the ballot box?
      In the past, presiding officers were aware that Sinn Fein members were personating, but were afraid to take the necessary action. It will be the same on 15 May when Sinn Fein members again demand other people's votes at the polling station. What will the presiding officer do? The Bill shows what he should do. It is easy for us to put into legislation what he should do, but he must live among those who are personating, and he and his family will be in danger.
      Mr. John Hume: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the presiding officer must do that whether there is a list of identification documents or not?
      Mr. Robinson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened to make my point. The Bill has little value if the presiding officer is in fear, as he was before. It does not do anything about that. If he denies people a vote, mayhem will result. I hope that the Minister will join me in my constituency on 15 May to see the reaction of those who are denied a vote.
      The Bill makes it no harder for Sinn Fein members to personate. It makes the task of the presiding officers more difficult because the necessary administrative measures will cause delays before votes can be cast. It makes the party workers' task more difficult because they must convey the Bill's requirements to the electorate and probably run people to the polling station twice because they will forget the prescribed documents. It makes the voters' task more difficult, and will probably confuse him. The candidate will probably come off worst, not only because fewer votes will be cast in the face of the confusion that will arise, but because he will be blamed for this, not the Minister, who will not be at the polling station to see the results.
      In conclusion, the Bill is a dog's breakfast. The Minister may have taken some of the ingredients out and put others in, but it is still a dog's breakfast.
      Mr. James Nicholson: I rise for the first time to speak about the Bill, and so I am one of the few who can say that whatever I say, will not have been heard before. I was happy to leave the Bill in the hands of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but when I listened to the Minister I felt that I should intervene.
      This is a poor and bad Bill. It will cause many and immense problems in the future, such as those outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). In parts of my constituency there has always been personation. Personation has always existed and will continue to exist, despite the Bill. Those who want votes will continue to get them by threats, intimidation or whatever means will achieve them. The Bill places presiding officers in a more difficult position than ever before.
      I am worried about the parts of the Bill which relate to presiding officers. More than half of my constituency does not have the problem of personation, but it has been tarred with the same brush by the Minister.
      The Minister has referred to Northern Ireland as a whole as being involved in personation, but only small
      634
      parts of constituencies—it is not every constituency—have that problem. I find that intolerable, unacceptable and most aggravating.
      There are many thousands of electors who never have and never will abuse their right to vote. I am worried that there are some who will be disfranchised by the Government's action.
      For many, the act of voting can be an ordeal. It is something they are not enthusiastic about. The documents that the Government are asking voters to produce will dissuade some from even going to the polling station. The Government may be doing harm by introducing the Bill. I hope that I may be proved wrong but I doubt it.
      I have as much experience at grass roots level as any hon. Member. I have good grounds for believing that I have more experience than those involved in drawing up the Bill and bringing it to this stage.
      I have sat in a polling station as a personation agent and I have acted as a sub-agent. I believe that the Bill will cause more problems for those involved in elections in Northern Ireland before polling day, on polling day and after polling day when people realise the effect of the Bill.
      The Bill does not strike the right balance. The Government have panicked; the Bill is a panic measure and one that the Minister will live to regret.
      1.2 am
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I shall refer in a few sentences to what is in the Bill, because it contains two grave elements. First, it makes a fundamental alteration in the franchise by attaching a new condition—hitherto non existent—to the right to exercise the vote. Secondly, it changes the franchise in one part only of the United Kingdom thus introducing a differentiation between the right to vote for membership, for instance, of this House between one part of the United Kingdom and the remainder.
      My hon. Friends and I, and, indeed, virtually all who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, are bound to resist the measure because on both counts it fails to meet the requirements.
      The new condition which is attached to voting is a condition which cannot, by its very nature—the debates on the Bill have shown this — achieve the intended object.
      The documentation will be inadequate to ensure that personation does not occur, so that the purpose behind the innovation in the franchise will not be reached by the Bill.
      The circumstances in Northern Ireland are not to that degree unique, nor is the consequence of those circumstances to the electoral outcome in Northern Ireland so grave as to justify the extreme gravity of the step of legislating differentially on this crucial matter of the franchise for Northern Ireland as against the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Those who represent Northern Ireland seats would be failing in their duty if they did not oppose this measure at this last stage.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: At this early hour of the morning I know that many hon. Members wish to get away, but the people of Northern Ireland and the candidates at local government elections, Assembly elections, elections to this House and EEC elections will have to live with the Bill. It is all very well for Members of this House to say that the Bill ought to be given a trial. We have said that

      635
      the Bill ought to be given a trial for three years and that after three years it ought to be looked at again. But we have been told that the Bill must become law. Reasonable propositions have been ruled out. Ministers have said to me that the purpose of the Bill is to deal with the IRA threat and that the SDLP want the Bill.
      Mr. Hume: I hope that the Minister will confirm that the request for the Bill did not come from the SDLP. The first request came from the former Secretary of State. He wrote to all parties in Northern Ireland and asked them to come and discuss the problems relating to vote stealing in Northern Ireland. On that occasion the SDLP opposed the introduction of such a measure as this. After subsequent elections, it became clear that the evils were so widespread that we ought to acquiesce. I have put before the House the only proposal which I believe is foolproof against vote-stealing in Northern Ireland. It relates to the moment of registration of voting. I said on Second Reading that the proposal was not perfect, but it is the only one which is before us now.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am very pleased that the House now knows that the SDLP do not want the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express that view by the way he votes tonight.
      Mr. Hume: That is not what I said. I shall acquiesce.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman says that he is going to acquiesce. Why acquiesce when the hon. Gentleman know that the Bill will not fulfil its task? In the past, this House has tried by legislation to prevent various aspects of Irish nationalism and republicanism and has failed utterly. Sinn Fein will not be defeated by the Bill, even when it becomes an Act. Anybody who believes that Sinn Fein will be defeated by the Bill ought to have his head examined. Everybody knows that those who intend to personate will steal as many votes as they can at the next election. If there is an increase in the Sinn Fein vote after the Bill becomes law, this House will be a laughing stock. Nobody will laugh more heartily at this House than Sinn Fein and the IRA. Therefore, the House needs to look very carefully at this legislation.
      I am amazed by the Minister's explanation of the registrar's certificate. The registrar's certificate is copied from the certificate issued by the minister. His certificate is no good, but a copy will be accepted. I cannot understand why. Nor can any minister in Northern Ireland, whether he be priest or clergyman. I do not understand the Government's reasoning. The Government believe that their original proposals must be adhered to as though they were the laws of the Medes and the Persians. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the proposal that the poll card should carry upon it a list of these documents. I am waiting to hear whether we shall have time during the elections in Northern Ireland to carry out the provisions contained in the Bill. I trust that we shall be told tonight that we shall have at least as much time at local elections as is provided on this side of the water.
      Mr. Scott: The Order in Council that will extend the provisions of the Bill to local government elections will take account of the point that the hon. Gentleman and others have made about the length of polling hours. The draft order will be made available to the political parties for consultation before it is laid before Parliament.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome that assurance, because it is essential that the people of Northern Ireland have time to produce the documents and time to cast their votes. The Minister's intervention encourages me. I know what happens on election day, and I know that time is needed. I agree that something should be done, and the proposition of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) was a good one, but it has been ruled out. The Bill includes a list of prescribed documents but does not include a document that would be produced by the presiding officer and confirmed by the voter. It is a pity that more thought was not given to the idea of the hon. Member for Foyle. The Minister told me that it would be impossible to have such a system in operation by May. That may be so, but why could we not introduce it after May?
      It would be better for us not to rush through this legislation. That is why my hon. Friends and I will vote against it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 13.

      Division No. 42]

      [1.11 am

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Lilley, Peter

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Lord, Michael

      Best, Keith

      McCrindle, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      MacGregor, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Major, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Mather, Carol

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Merchant, Piers

      Cope, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Moate, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Dover, Den

      Murphy, Christopher

      Durant, Tony

      Neubert, Michael

      Favell, Anthony

      Newton, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      Norris, Steven

      Fox, Marcus

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Freeman, Roger

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Gale, Roger

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Galley, Roy

      Powley, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Raffan, Keith

      Gregory, Conal

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Ground, Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Harvey, Robert

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hawksley, Warren

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hayes, J.

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hind, Kenneth

      Spencer, Derek

      Holt, Richard

      Stanbrook, Ivor

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

      Stern, Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Hume, John

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Jackson, Robert

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Tracey, Richard

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Walden, George

      Lang, Ian

      Waller, Gary

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Wheeler, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Whitney, Raymond

      Lester, Jim

      Wilkinson, John

      637

      Wolfson, Mark

      Teller for the Ayes:

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Peter Lloyd

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy

      Patchett, Terry

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

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

      McCrea, Rev William

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      McCusker, Harold

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maginnis, Ken

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholson, J.

      Mr. A. Cecil Walker and

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. William Ross.

      Parry, Robert

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

  PETITION

    Human Embryos
    1.22 am
    Mr. John Powley: I have the honour to present a petition for the protection of the human embryo, signed by some 1,295 residents of my constituency. They state
    Wherefore Your Petitoners Pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned).
    I support the petition, and beg leave to present it to the House.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
  1.23 am
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a matter of great and growing international importance, the House this morning has to face the reality that the Cabinet almost certainly decided yesterday that Britain should not sign the law of the sea convention. The convention has been open for signature for two years. The period comes to an end on Sunday. So far, some 143 Governments have signed out of a potential 162.
  I believe that the decision that the Cabinet had to make was a major one, and that the Cabinet made the wrong decision. It was a negative, shoddy and shameful decision, and fell well below the level of events.
  Britain's self-interest as a great seafaring country happily coincides with our international responsibilities and obligations. It is a matter of great international importance. Seventy per cent. of the surface of the globe is covered by the sea, and the international negotiations in which Britain proudly and rightly played a major role lasted for almost three decades.
  On this matter of world importance, a Conservative Government have gone out of their way to divorce themselves from Commonwealth thinking — and have done so after the most recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference when a powerful and unambiguous statement was produced calling for support for the convention. In 1980, the Carter Administration in the United States said that they were willing to accept the principles of the treaty which were then agreed on. Britain, under the present Government of course, followed suit, as it was clearly felt to be in our best interests. The Reagan Administration, as soon as it came into power, demanded the right to reconsider the entire package. Enlightened opinion in that country is that the United States is making a mistake in not signing the treaty. Elliot Richardson, a most distinguished former United States ambassador to the Court of St. James, said a year ago:
  "The real importance of the Law of the Sea Convention cannot be found either in the sum of its parts or in its extraordinarily comprehensive whole. It lies rather in its demonstration of the capacity of 160 sovereign states to work out accommodations among vital competing interests. This is an achievement whose significance will loom even larger as the world increasingly finds itself forced to come to grips with its own inseparability".
  The House knows the reason for Britain failing to sign the convention, having previously supported it under Governments of both parties over the years. It is that President Reagan and the mining interests in the United States do not wish us to do so. As a strong supporter of the Atlantic Alliance, I claim that that is absolutely the wrong way in which to proceed. The United States' interests are not entirely the same as ours. Our U-turn suggests a willingness to be pushed around by the bigger partner.
  In an editorial two years ago, The Times said:
  "The Government's decision to go along with the United States and jettison the UN convention of the law of the sea is very much to be regretted".
  The editorial ended thus:
  "Britain, as a maritime nation rightly anxious to retain her distant-water naval capability has a higher interest in the fate of

  639
  this convention than anything to do with polymetallic nodules on the ocean floor. Freedom of navigation, the limits of territorial rights, development of the continental shelf, the passage of international straits, oceanic pollution, the peaceful transit of warships—these are all matters about which uncertainty has arisen … They are matters which, when uncertain are likely to give rise to conflict. They are all matters that are amenable to resolution under a system of validated international law."
  More recently, the Financial Times of 30 November advised:
  "In the end, there must be some stable international legal regime for exploiting the sea-bed beyond coastal waters, if those waters are to be exploited. Difficult though it may be in practice, the Law of the Sea Convention is better built upon than demolished or ignored".
  I like to think that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in favour of this international measure in principle. For the Ministry of Defence, it has great importance, especially for the Royal Navy, and for dealing with creepy crawlies and submarines. For the Department of the Environment, it has much to say about pollution; and the Department of Trade and Industry must be only too conscious of the strong support of the convention from maritime interests.
  Only one part of the whole—indeed, only one part out of 17—is disputed. That is the mining aspect. The advice that I have been given is that such deep-sea mining is highly unlikely before the beginning of the next century and many experts think that it will be uneconomic for the foreseeable future. The cost of setting up a deep-sea bed mining operation is usually put at $1 billion to $1·5 billion. No investor will be prepared to commit such sums unless he has assurance that he has exclusive and unrestricted access to the mine site. The only way in which such access can be obtained is through the treaty.
  I am told that Shell and BP are both potential deep-sea mining companies, as well as major shipping companies. Both have said that while they are dissatisfied with the mining provisions, the overall interests in freedom of movement must take precedence, and both companies favour signature. How much more important, therefore, is it for the Government to support the convention? Other nations with deep sea mining potential have signed, such as the Soviet Union, Japan, France and Canada.
  We learnt today that the European Community is to sign those parts of the convention that it can sign, and Britain has acquiesced in this move. This has put us into a ridiculous position. It would have been far better to have reaped the rewards of signing ourselves.
  In the past, Ministers have talked of Britain's increasing international importance. For example, I recall the Government's success in settling the Rhodesia issue, which had been a sore for so long. Only last night, we debated the considerable achievement of the agreement with Hong Kong. Why, then, do Ministers allow such effective and worthwhile international work to be constantly undermined by short-sighted, and sometimes penny-pinching attitudes? I think of the Government's decisions on overseas students fees, overseas aid, the external services of the BBC, the British Council, information officers overseas, and Wilton park. All these weaken our standing in the international community.
  Yesterday, with one blow, the Conservative Government upset the Royal Navy, the Commonwealth and the maritime interests that are vital to our island community in the developing world in which we trade.
  640
  Yesterday, they quickly took a decision that our party, our people and country, and many of our international friends will live to regret. Let wiser thoughts prevail. Let us work within the international community. Above all, for God's sake, let us have some vision.
  1.32 am
  Mr. Keith Best: My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) has made a most valuable contribution, and I congratulate him on it.
  In creating a constitution for the oceans, the convention was described by Ambassador Koh of Singapore as:
  "a monumental achievement of the international community, second only to the Charter of the United Nations."
  It is a convention of supreme importance for those of us who believe that world peace can be achieved only by a greater global security through international law. The convention sets out a regime that governs 70 per cent. of the surface of the globe. At Montego bay in December 1982, 119 nations were able to sign it immediately. It is an international agreement of a magnitude unparalleled in the history of the world. Is the United Kingdom to have no part in this? Where is our international responsibility to greater order in the world? The Secretary-General of the United Nations described the convention as:
  "Like a breath of fresh air at a time of serious crisis in international co-operation and a decline in the use of international machinery for the solution of world problems."
  I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary three questions in November this year. I asked:

  "(1) if he will recommend that Her Majesty's Government should accede to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea before the deadline of 9 December.

  (2) which aspects of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea are still unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government; what progress has been made in the last 12 months to resolve such difficulties; and what progress he expects to make in the future;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. — [Official Report, 29 November 1984, Vol. 68, c. 591.]

  I received an unsatisfactory answer—I say with respect to my hon. Friend the Minister — because it merely referred me to a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, North (Mr. Skeet). That reply stated merely:
  "We have as yet taken no final decision. We remain in touch with other European countries which have not signed the convention."— [Official Report, 9 November 1984, Vol. 67, c. 42.]
  I think that my detailed questions merited a more comprehensive reply than was given.
  A parliamentary question was asked and answered today, which told us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath said, that the European Community, whose competence on the convention is limited, will sign the convention, and the Government will not stand in its way. It is time that we took a lead. We should not be equivocal: we should be in the forefront of the EEC. Only the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, as I understand it, have said that they will not sign. So, although we agree to the EC, of which we are a member, signing, we will not do so ourselves.
  On 2 December 1982, questions were put to my hon. Friend, and he said that the Government would do their best to achieve a more satisfactory solution. I ask him to say what the Government have done positively in the last two years to fulfil that promise?
  Let this Great Britain of our have the courage to lead and not just to follow. We are not, nor must we ever be perceived to be, the lap-dog of the United States, even

  641
  though she may be our closest friend and ally. Unlike the United States, we have not refused to sign the treaty totally but have said that there should be improvements and that we are prepared to work for further compromise. We must do so, and the initiative must come from us.
  On 29 November, I asked my hon. Friend what benefits would be lost to the United Kingdom if we failed to register under the preparatory investment protection resolution of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. I received the surprising and incomplete answer:
  "I am not aware of any United Kingdom entity with deep seabed mining interests which wishes to take advantage of the deep seabed regime presently proposed under the United Nations law of the sea convention."—[Official Report, 29 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 591.]
  Yet the reality as set out in the recent excellent pamphlet on the subject by David Ward is that
  "Britain's mining companies can enjoy special status as 'pioneer investors' only on condition that we sign the convention within the two-year signature period which expires on 9 December 1984. The privilege of virtual guaranteed access to future seabed mine sites offered under the PIP resolution was among the major concessions offered to the industrialised countries by the Group of 77 at the end of UNCLOS 3. Ironically, Britain stands to throw away the benefits gained from earlier negotiations simply because of reluctance to sign the convention, which in any case requires ratification by 60 states including Britain before it can be enforced on our mining companies.
  Should Britain fail to sign, our mining companies will fall behind those consortia or state enterprise that have been able to register as 'pioneer investors'. Already four countries—France, India, Japan and the USSR—have registered, which clearly indicates their intention to carry out deep-sea mining under the regime established by the convention. In particular, the Soviet Union and India have agreed an understanding to avoid competition for mine sites prior to their application for registration as 'pioneer investors'."
  We should be prepared to lead in Europe, in the Commonwealth and in the world. That is the aspiration of every hon. Member and every citizen. Especially of this Government, who have done so much to restore our international prestige and position, we have a right to demand it. The eyes of the world are on my hon. Friend when he responds to the debate. I hope that he is able to do so with sufficiency of purpose. Our country's influence is crucial and will determine the success or failure of the law of the sea.
  1.38 am
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is a great pleasure to support my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best). It is regrettable that the only hon. Members present are Conservatives. We keep hearing from the Opposition that the Labour party, the Liberals and the SDP are worried about this matter, but tonight they are absent. It is a great shame, because this is a national and an international issue.
  I understand that the Government are saying that they do not intend to sign this treaty on the basis that they do not intend to ratify it and therefore they do not sign what they do not intend to ratify. I understand that point of view. I also understand and share the Government's considerable disquiet with part XI, dealing with deep-sea mining. It is substantially flawed, but it is my belief that in the main the convention produces such considerable benefits for us that if we sign without ratification we can engineer changes in the convention that will allow part XI to be amended so that it is acceptable to the nation.
  642
  The Government say that they will not sign that which they will not ratify. However, there have been occasions when they have signed but not ratified. I shall give three examples. In 1971, we signed the International Maritime Organisation convention on liability for the carriage of nuclear materials in ships at sea. We have not yet ratified it. In 1977, we signed the north-west European offshore civil liability convention. We have not yet ratified it. Again in 1977, we signed an important convention, the Geneva convention on the laws of war. We have not yet ratified it.
  I suggest that we should take as an example the 1973 Marpol convention of the IMO. We ratified it only in 1980. We did so only after a protocol had been negotiated to amend the convention before it came into force, allowing us to accept some but not all of the annexes. That is a good precedent for us to follow. We can sign with honour the convention on the law of the sea. We do not need to ratify it until we have negotiated far more sensible arrangements on part XI. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that approach and, therefore, to urge on his right hon. and learned Friend that we sign the convention and work for a much fairer system in part XI. The convention will stop, or at least contain, maritime anarchy, and that is desperately important.
  1.41 am
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for affording me two minutes during his excellent Adjournment debate to make my contribution on my own behalf and on that of the the United Nations Association in my constituency. I support the wisdom and faith in his words and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) and for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) in major respects.
  We must, for the sake of British trade interests, settle and codify international maritime law, especially navigational rights. Secondly, we must settle now, well before commercial interests run riot in the next century, the deep-sea mining problem. We are storing up trouble for ourselves from the year 2000 onwards and we must have the foresight to deal with it. Thirdly, we must show confidence in the concepts of the Commonwealth, the European Community and, above all, the United Nations. There is no better way of doing that than by signing the convention on the law of the sea.
  I believe that the opposite of co-operation is isolationism, that of foresight is narrowmindedness, and that of generosity is greed.
  1.43 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Ritkind): I very much agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) when he spoke of the seriousness and importance of the subject. I can assure him and my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best), for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that the Government attach the same importance to it. I can confirm that the Government's view has not changed from the one expressed in 1982 and that we have taken the decision that Britain should not sign the United Nations law of the sea convention.
  Although 9 December is the last date on which signatures can be attached to the convention, it remains

  643
  open for accession by states after that date. It would be open to the United Kingdom, or to other countries which have not signed, to become a party to the convention if in future it is improved in a way that we would find appropriate.
  We have decided that, although we cannot sign the convention, we shall not object to the signature of the European Community being attached to it. The Community's competence is limited to fisheries, pollution, customs matters between landlocked states and commercial policy to a limited extent. There is nothing illogical in us not objecting to the Community's signature. The parts of the convention for which the Community is competent are parts to which we do not object. We should have been happy to sign the convention if it had dealt only with those issues.
  I take exception to the idea that the United Kingdom is simply following United States policy without considering the British national interest. I urge my hon. Friends to reflect on that accusation, because it is unworthy. We have not followed the United States. We have insisted on participating in the preparatory commission and have shown our willingness in certain circumstances to accept the desirability of signing the convention, while the United States has taken a harsher position on most of the issues.
  The suggestion that the countries which have refused to sign the convention are the lapdogs of the United States does not hold much water when one sees the list of countries which have refused to sign the convention. Over 30 countries, including those well-known followers of America such as Libya, Nicaragua and Albania, as well as many countries with varying political complexions, have refused to sign.
  When about 14 years ago we entered the negotiations on this convention, the United Kingdom hoped for agreement on a comprehensive regime on marine matters which was generally acceptable to all nations. In the latter part of the conference it became clear that agreement could not be reached on the provisions related to deep sea-bed mining. Instead of being adopted by concensus, the text of the convention was put to a vote, in which the United Kingdom abstained.
  Although much of the convention was recognised as valuable, the proposed regime for deep sea-bed mining was unacceptable to almost all the states which had the capacity to develop the industry. Although some countries involved in deep sea-bed mining might have signed the convention, all the western countries with an interest in the industry have made it clear that they do not intend to ratify the treaty unless substantial changes are made to it. Only ratification will introduce new rights or obligations.
  We came to the position which I have described to the House on 2 December 1982. We were not prepared to sign the convention with the current mining regime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn asked what we have done in the last few years. We have tried to influence the improvement of the convention. We have faithfully followed that objective. We have participated to the extent that our being non-signatories made possible. We have put forward proposals and ideas and have fully participated in attempts to improve the convention. However, that has not produced the results for which we hoped.
  644
  We have a number of objections to the mining regime—the onerous financial and other terms governing the participation of commercial operators, the cost that would accrue to this Government of supporting the over-elaborate structure of the authority and the activities of its operating arm—the Enterprise.
  I shall explain the costs. For example, the fixed administrative cost of ratification at 1983 prices, with the sea-bed mining provisions unaltered and in force, would for the United Kingdom be between £3·6 million and £8 million. Running administrative costs would be between £1·5 million and £1·8 million.
  In addition, the estimated cost to the United Kingdom of financing the Enterprise on the present basis would be between £25 million and £40 million in interest-free loans, plus the same amount in debt guarantees. That is on the assumption that the United States is also participating in the convention and paying its 33 per cent. share of the total cost. Since we know that the United States has no intention of participating, we have to add about 33 per cent. to those figures. Very large sums are therefore involved for a profoundly unattractive regime.
  A further objection is the undesirable regulatory powers of the authority, in relation to production limitations, for example. In addition, there is the mandatory transfer of technology which sets an unacceptable precident which cannot have attracted any of my hon. Friends.
  Finally, it is proposed that there should be a review conference 15 years after commercial mining commences. That review conference could force through an even more unattractive deep sea-bed mining regime through the use of the majority vote by which countries that had no deep sea bed mining interest of their own could enforce their views on those that did and were paying for the whole operation.
  Our delegation to the preparatory commission went to considerable lengths to put across our views and to open up possibilities for obtaining improvements, but only a few limited technical proposals met with any response. Accordingly, the balance of advantage had to be decided between the greater part of the convention which is acceptable, but much of which is codification of existing laws, and significant aspects which are unacceptable to us. Those parts of the convention which cause us difficulty raise such significant problems that it would not be in our interest to sign. Moreover, none of the benefits to us in the convention is certain or, indeed, will take effect until the convention comes into force. There may be 138 signatories to the convention, but only 14 countries have so far ratified, and the convention will enter into force only after 60 states have ratified or acceded. There is no legal status under the convention which has not yet entered into force.
  Some people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys MÔn, have suggested that, by not signing, the United Kingdom loses the possibility for our companies to operate as pioneer investors under the convention's final Act. However, the terms are unattractive, and no United Kingdom entity interested in sea bed mining has indicated to us a wish to take advantage of those provisions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East has argued that we should sign the convention and show a commitment to it in the hope that the preparatory commission will listen to our concerns. As I have mentioned to the House, it is not our practice in the United Kingdom to sign international treaties that we do not think

  645
  we will be able to ratify. We are not in a position to undertake to ratify the United Nations law of the sea convention. Even those who favour signature would regard ratification of the present convention as against our interests.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East mentioned various examples which he described as precedents—there is no such thing. The examples he cited are not cases where we signed a convention or a treaty in the declared knowledge that we did not intend to ratify them. In some cases there have been reasons that delayed ratification. The original signature may have been rendered inappropriate in the light of the new, changed circumstances. There is no precedent for the United Kingdom to sign a convention that it already knows it cannot ratify. That is an important consideration.
  646
  I must emphasise the fact that all the major European Community countries and other countries such as Japan which have signed the convention have made it clear that they will not ratify the convention. It may be acceptable to them to sign treaties that they do not intend ratifying, but that is not a principle that has carried weight in the United Kingdom. I should be surprised if my hon. Friends were suggesting that we should go back on a basic principle of our approach to international treaties, simply because it might have a beneficial political effect on our international relations.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Blind Persons (Employment)
  Blind Persons (Employment)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Trials (Statutory Time Limit)
  Trials (Statutory Time Limit)
  Short Brothers (Privatisation)
  Short Brothers (Privatisation)
WALES
  Adult Training (Loans)
  Adult Training (Loans)
  Self-employed People
  Self-employed People
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Local Education Authorities
  Local Education Authorities
  Rhymney Valley District Council
  Rhymney Valley District Council
  River Conwy (Tunnel)
  River Conwy (Tunnel)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
PRIME MINISTER
  Falklands War
  Falklands War
  Farleigh Wallop
  Farleigh Wallop
  Secretary of State for Energy (Speech)
  Secretary of State for Energy (Speech)
  Lewisham
  Lewisham
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Education Act 1944 (Correspondence)
  Education Act 1944 (Correspondence)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Sheltered Housing Schemes
  Sheltered Housing Schemes
  Planning Permission
  Planning Permission
  Block Grant
  Block Grant
  Tobacco Companies (Sponsorship)
  Tobacco Companies (Sponsorship)
  Greater London Research Library
  Greater London Research Library
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Housing Waiting Lists
  GLC (Mortgagors)
  GLC (Mortgagors)
  Radioactive Waste, Billingham
  Radioactive Waste, Billingham
  Public Sector Tenants
  Public Sector Tenants
  Enterprise Zones (Job Creation)
  Enterprise Zones (Job Creation)
  Thamesmead
  Thamesmead
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Tuition Fees (Parental Contribution)
  Tuition Fees (Parental Contribution)
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  University Tuition Fees
  University Tuition Fees
  Student Awards and Fees
  Student Awards and Fees
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Departmental Staff (Blind Persons)
  Departmental Staff (Blind Persons)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Deprivation (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Deprivation (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Magistrates (Newcastle)
  Magistrates (Newcastle)
  Magistrates (Appointments)
  Magistrates (Appointments)
  Sentencing Policy (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Sentencing Policy (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Auction (Bidding Agreements) Act
  Auction (Bidding Agreements) Act
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Allowances and Taxation
  Personal Allowances and Taxation
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Freeports
  Freeports
  Employers (Tax Concessions)
  Employers (Tax Concessions)
  Take-away Food (Value Added Tax)
  Take-away Food (Value Added Tax)
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
TRANSPORT
  Experimental Road Surfacing Materials
  Experimental Road Surfacing Materials
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
  Dartford Tunnel
  Dartford Tunnel
  Driving Tests, Stoke-on-Trent
  Driving Tests, Stoke-on-Trent
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  Departmental Economies (Rewards)
  Departmental Economies (Rewards)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  Greater London Transport Survey
  Greater London Transport Survey
  Greater London (Motor Cars)
  Greater London (Motor Cars)
  British Transport Police (Identification Parades)
  British Transport Police (Identification Parades)
  British Rail (Public Service Obligation Grant)
  British Rail (Public Service Obligation Grant)
  Road Traffic Growth
  Road Traffic Growth
ENERGY
  Coal Mining Industry
  Coal Mining Industry
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Youth Training Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Training and Job Creation
  Training and Job Creation
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Farm Machinery (Accidents)
  Farm Machinery (Accidents)
  Coal Miners (Accident Statistics)
  Coal Miners (Accident Statistics)
  Liverpool Skillcentre
  Liverpool Skillcentre
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Community Scheme
  Community Scheme
  Wages Inspectors
  Wages Inspectors
SCOTLAND
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Fines
  Fines
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Claimants (Industrial Disputes)
  Claimants (Industrial Disputes)
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Public Duties (Payments)
  Public Duties (Payments)
  Social Security (Costs)
  Social Security (Costs)
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Family Practitioner Service (Review)
  Family Practitioner Service (Review)
  Social Security (Equal Treatment)
  Social Security (Equal Treatment)
  Smoking (Health)
  Smoking (Health)
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Benzodiazepines
  Benzodiazepines
  Drugs (Overprescribing)
  Drugs (Overprescribing)
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Myasthenia Gravis
  Myasthenia Gravis
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  West Midlands RHA (General Manager)
  West Midlands RHA (General Manager)
  Social Security Advisory Committee
  Social Security Advisory Committee
DEFENCE
  Forces (Free Mail)
  Forces (Free Mail)
  Nimrod Airborne Early Warning Project
  Nimrod Airborne Early Warning Project
  Airland Battle Concept
  Airland Battle Concept
  NATO
  NATO
  Government Policy
  Government Policy
  Fleet Headquarters (Signals)
  Fleet Headquarters (Signals)
  HMS Conqueror
  HMS Conqueror
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Defendants' Pleas (Statistics)
  Defendants' Pleas (Statistics)
  Juvenile Fines and Compensation Orders (Payment by Parents)
  Juvenile Fines and Compensation Orders (Payment by Parents)
  Unemployment and Violent Crime
  Unemployment and Violent Crime
  Civil Defence College
  Civil Defence College
  Young Persons (Prosecutions)
  Young Persons (Prosecutions)
  Shops (Opening Hours)
  Shops (Opening Hours)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Coal Industries Dispute
  Coal Industries Dispute
  Women (Attacks)
  Women (Attacks)
  Racial Harassment
  Racial Harassment
  Racial Attacks
  Racial Attacks
  Stop and Search
  Stop and Search
  Nuclear Attack
  Nuclear Attack
  Courts (Fines)
  Courts (Fines)
  Prisoners (Parole)
  Prisoners (Parole)
  Soliciting and Loitering
  Soliciting and Loitering
  Prostitutes
  Prostitutes
  Metropolitan Police (Identification Parades)
  Metropolitan Police (Identification Parades)
  Police (Free Facilities)
  Police (Free Facilities)
  Winson Green Prisoners (Dental Treatment)
  Winson Green Prisoners (Dental Treatment)
  Greenham Common (Policing Costs)
  Greenham Common (Policing Costs)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Royal Ordnance Factories: Valuation
Lord Diamond: 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 achieving the purposes of the Royal Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984 and, in particular, what assets of every kind are to be acquired, at what price, and what is the basis of valuation applied to each category of asset; and whether they will set out the Memorandum of Understanding in full.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, good progress has been made to prepare for the vesting day of Royal Ordnance plc. Full lists of the assets to be transferred to the company, together with the principles of valuation to be applied to those assets, will be set out in the scheme to be made under the Act. That scheme is not yet complete, but we have undertaken, subject to considerations of security and commercial confidentiality, to place a copy in the Library on vesting day. We have also made clear our intention to publish in full, subject again to considerations of commercial sensitivity, a memorandum defining the relationship between the Secretary of State and the company.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it quite clear that he has gone as far as he reasonably can under the Act in putting before your Lordships' House a number of details which have not yet been settled; but may I come back to the earliest part of his Answer when he referred to the fact that progress had been made? Does that mean that no definite transfer, as envisaged by Section 1, has yet taken place and would that not be regrettable?
Does the Minister recollect that the main reason the Government gave for overriding the decision of your Lordships' House that this House should be consulted before and not after the event was—and I think I can quote it—
"that it would result in unnecessary delay"?
The delay would have been for perhaps half a day. Is it not the case that six weeks have elapsed and nothing has happened in the sense of making a transfer? Is not this a further example of the Government's highhanded attitude with regard to your Lordships' House in refusing to give it information which they conveniently could have done?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that, because it is not the case. We can
1446
hardly place a document before Parliament which is not yet complete. As I explained in the Answer, work continues on the preparation of the scheme; and, as I have said, at the earliest moment we shall place it before your Lordships.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, if work continues on it, then obviously no transfer has taken place. Why then could we not have had even the whole of half a day's delay so that the House of Lords should be consulted, as it had decided on a vote?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the parliamentary procedure that would be required would be considerably longer than half a day.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, bearing in mind the promises that were made concerning no detriment to the rights of the workers, would the Minister care to tell the House what progress has been made concerning arrangements for the transfer of pension rights? Also, would the Minister confirm to the House that an additional £2 million has been paid into the pension fund against the possibility that a court may order that the present arrangements are detrimental to the rights of the workers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that the workers will have any reason to believe that the new arrangements are in any way detrimental to them. Perhaps I could say in parenthesis that some of the redundancies that were originally foreshadowed at two of the Royal Ordnance factories—namely, Birtley and Bishopton—will not now be as serious as was at first feared: 261 fewer jobs are likely to be lost at Birtley as a result of a recent order for Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot shot. Also, at Bishopton there will be a saving in the number of redundancies of 240 against the figures originally envisaged—again because of an improved workload.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, bearing in mind the experience of the BT flotation, may I ask whether it would have been right to have made this scheme, which includes the basis of valuation of the assets, subject to approval by Parliament?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, I do not think that would have been the right course of action. Of course, this has no relation to the public sale of shares in Royal Ordnance plc. What we are talking about is the transfer of these assets to a company which will in the first instance be wholly owned by my right honourable friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers to the very particular questions that were put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were most unsatisfactory? Will the noble Lord explain just how conditions of what he describes as "commercial confidentiality" prevent him from disclosing what assets of every kind are to be acquired and at what price, and what is the basis of valuation? Surely before one embarks on disposing of public assets in the hopeful belief that they will not be sold off at a loss, it is quite permissible to disclose to the House the basis of valuation that is to be adopted for the transfer itself?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall of course reveal as much detail as we can in the scheme which I have referred to, which will be laid before the House no later than vesting day. But there are elements of this which impinge upon the commerical relevance to the company concerned. For example, if the other commercial competitors with Royal Ordnance factories knew the precise value of certain assets, and thus the amount to be ascribed to their costs in relation to the servicing of those assets, that would be a piece of commercial information which the opposition would no doubt find very useful.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can tell us how many firms will apply to take over the various factories?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, none has as yet been invited to do so.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are quite appalled at this further Government-induced unemployment in the North-East, which is the area of highest unemployment in Great Britain?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is referring to. I have just announced a reduced number of redundancies, not an increase. The level of employment in the Royal Ordnance Factories is not wholly in the gift of the Government. It depends on the commercial success of the Royal Ordnance Factories; and when they eventually move into the private sector they will be in a much better position to achieve that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware, I am quite sure, that I am referring to the further unemployment at Birtley which is resulting from these arrangements being made by the Government.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have just announced a reduction in the number of redundancies which are anticipated at Birtley, but none the less the continued maintenance of a particular level of employment at that factory in the Royal Ordnance system or at any other is dependent upon their commercial success. The Ministry of Defence is not a sort of National Health Service for the defence industries of this country.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, what an appalling answer!
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since the Question makes some reference to the valuation of assets, and since the valuation of assets will, I hope, have some relevance to the price at which the Royal Ordnance Factories will be disposed of, can the Minister tell us whether it would not be wise to await the examination of the Public Accounts Committee of the sale and price of British Telecom before proceeding with this further privatisation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have not as yet announced any date for the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance Factories. The exercise that we are now
1448
considering is the transfer of the assets to a company which will be wholly owned by the Secretary of State.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while the Ministry of Defence is not a National Health Service, is the noble Lord not aware that the closure of docks and ordnance factories in areas of high unemployment is an extremely serious matter, especially as this Government never make any preparation for it or provide any alternative employment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course these are important matters which the Ministry of Defence does indeed take into account but, as I said in answer to another Question the other day, these are not the paramount considerations to which we have to have regard.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as a result of the intervention by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, will my noble friend make it clear once again that, if I understand the Question on the Order Paper correctly, it has nothing whatever to do with the redundancies recently announced and the question of employment in certain ordnance factories? Indeed, will he confirm that the whole purpose of removing the inevitable constraints upon an organisation on a trading fund basis in the public sector is to enable that organisation to compete more effectively within the arms industry at home and abroad, where, although it has made some progress in export orders, there is a lot that the quality of its products could still achieve, and that the object of these arrangements —
Noble Lords: Speech!
Viscount Trenchard:—is therefore to increase employment and increase the success of this industry?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The main thrust of these proposals is to enable the Royal Ordnance Factories to compete more effectively in world markets for these products.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the auditors of firms in the commercial sector have to certify that the accounts represent a true and fair view of the affairs of the company concerned, including the valuation of its assets, why should the ordnance factories be in a completely different situation? Why does the noble Lord say that, for competitive reasons, they cannot give information which would be obliged to be given in the case of a firm in the commercial sector?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the valuation of the assets to be transferred will be agreed by the Secretary of State with the management of the Royal Ordnance Factories, relying, if need be, on the advice of independent advisers.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? If the Royal Ordnance Factories invent a very effective new weapon, will the privately-owned ordnance factories be entitled to export that weapon to other countries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes they will, subject to the usual constraints that exist with regard to any other defence contractor.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, in view of the staggering reply of the noble Lord to my last supplementary question about the Ministry of Defence not being a health service—obviously it is not—is he aware that we can and do reasonably expect the Ministery of Defence and other Government purchasing agencies to make their purchases in areas of high unemployment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we certainly aim to spread our purchases over the country as effectively as possible but in the end we have to have regard, in the main anyway, to the considerations of cost effectiveness as far as the defence budget is concerned, and to ensure that we get the right product at the right price and made to the right specification.

Wages Councils: Future
3.20 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 wages councils remain in operation; and when it is intended to dispense with them.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, there are currently 26 wages councils. The Government have as yet made no decision on the future of wages councils. They are carefully considering all available evidence and opinion on their operation and efforts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, under ILO regulations, next year is the year of decision for the Government as to the continuation or otherwise of these bodies? Is he aware of the fact that many people in this country feel that in the present employment situation it is absurd to prevent a man accepting a job at a wage that he is prepared to accept?
Lord Young of Granham: My Lords, International Labour Convention No. 26 presents an opportunity for the Government to denounce the convention between June 1985 and June 1986. I am certain that my right honourable friend will take into account opinions expressed from all sides throughout the country.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that in the opinion of many people in all parties this would be an attack upon the poor and would have very little effect on employment? Will he also bear in mind that the committee which very recently considered shop hours found that the shop assistant was very lowly paid and strongly recommended to the Government that they should maintain the wages councils?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my right honourable friend will, as I said, take into account all shades of opinion on this matter. However, I must confess that concern has been expressed in the past, and shared by me, that on occasion wages councils fix rates which preclude the possibility of young people—17-year-olds—from taking advantage of the young workers' scheme. I am sure that the report of the inquiry which looked into the Shops Act and the recommendations contained in part of that report will be considered by my right honourable friend.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in over 90,000 inquiries it was shown that in more than 9,000 cases the incomes paid were below those fixed by the National Wages Council? Is the Minister further aware that on Monday a BBC radio programme stated that women were putting Christmas crackers into boxes at starvation wage levels? Does this not stress the need to strengthen the wages councils?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the wages inspectorate check about 40,000 establishments each year, and during 1982 and 1983 just over 6 per cent. of employees were found to be underpaid. Lost as I am in admiration for the BBC, I do not think it is its job to substitute for the 120 wages inspectors, although any evidence it has will, of course, be considered.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, if jobs policies are to have a top priority, will my noble friend the Minister make a close study of the number of jobs that are lost, particularly by young people and particularly in small businesses and small service operations, every time a wages council decision is made?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the responsibility for employment, of course, is with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but no one on this side of the House can fail to be concerned with the problems of unemployment and the difficulties and obstacles that are facing employment, particularly for young people.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that the prime reason why these wages councils were originally set up years ago was the appalling and disgracefully low wages that were paid in the catering sector to such people as waiters, bar staff and cleaners? The rates paid in those days were, compared with today, totally unacceptable. I urge the Minister to press the Government to think long and hard, and to refuse to pursue the policy suggested by the noble Lord who tabled this Question because it can only be a reverting back to wages that none of us would deem suitable to pay to anyone.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am fully aware of the historical reasons which brought about the creation of the wages councils and the ills which at that time they sought to remedy. Nevertheless, I should remind the House that it is extremely difficult for 16 or 17-year olds in this country to obtain employment at the present time in the hotel and catering industry because of the levels of wages that have been fixed for them.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us are worried about the possible connection between the Government's policy of privatising hospital catering and their possible intention to abolish the Catering Wages Council? Is this not a device to depress further the pay of a very low paid group of workers in hospital catering?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think this Government will knowingly undertake any policy other than one designed to enhance employment and employment opportunities.
Lord Collison: My Lords, I have a very simple but important question. If the Agriculture Wages Board is to be considered for abolition, or otherwise, and if it is to be looked at in any depth, will the Minister give me the assurance that the agricultural section of the Transport and General Workers' Union will be taken fully into consultation? The Agricultural Wages Board is of some considerable importance and concern to that union.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State for Employment will consult with all parties concerned should such an eventuality arise. Of course, at present no decision has been made; he is merely contemplating the consequences.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said about the BBC, will he bear in mind that the public of this country rely on a free press and a free BBC to bring to light injustices wherever they occur?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fully understand that. I was merely making the point that if allegations are made in any particular area they should be supported by full evidence. If there is evidence, I have no doubt that the wages inspectorate, which is the true and proper body for investigating such complaints, will take it up. It is very difficult to do so unless there is specific evidence against particular individuals.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the present reluctance of employers to take on additional full-time permanent staff stems less from high minimum wage levels set by wages councils than from the anti-employer bias of much of the employment legislation in the 1970s, which makes it extremely costly and time-consuming for employers to get rid of abusive, dishonest or grossly incompetent employees?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, one of my concerns is to look at any matters which act as barriers to employment, and I have no doubt that all these matters will be investigated by the Government.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that wages councils were established (I think in the first decade of this century) to protect the wages of large numbers of people engaged in sweated labour, particularly home workers, and that my noble friend Lord Shinwell and I both gave evidence about those
1452
conditions? Does he not now agree that there are thousands of workers in this country on low pay—pay which is below that necessary to provide a reasonable living standard? What are the Government going to do to protect them if they abolish the wages councils?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord and all noble Lords who were concerned with the establishment of wages councils, and rejoice with them that the difficulties of that particular era have been overcome. However, the matters which must concern the Government are those which restrict employment in this country; in particular, whatever restricts the employment of young people. I have spent much time over the past two or three years with young people, and I am concerned for their employment. However, I repeat my original Answer: the Government have made no decision on the future of the wages councils. They are carefully considering all the evidence. I know that my right honourable friend will carefully consider all that has been said in this House this afternoon.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when my noble friend gives that consideration will he also bear in mind that a measure which will help to provide more employment, particularly for young people, is absurdly described, and passes the credibility barrier, if described as an attack on the poor?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords; I did hear. I will pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State all comments expressed this afternoon.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister —
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I must speak for the House because we have taken 22 minutes on two Questions. I accept that they are very important Questions, but, equally, I am entitled to say, particularly as to the last Question, that there will be opportunities to come back to this issue before a decision is taken. I think that is perfectly clear from the exchanges. In those circumstances, the House may think it right to proceed to the next two Questions.

Leyland Road Runner: Orders
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total value of orders received by Leyland Trucks for the new Road Runner model.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand from the company that up to early November orders worth nearly £25 million had been received for the Road Runner.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. May I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government see this as a turning point in the fortunes of the BL commercial vehicle division; and what are the export possibilities for this vehicle?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, given the importance of the sector, this vehicle is as important to Leyland Vehicles as were the Metro and the Maestro to Austin Rover. Noble Lords will be aware of the improvement within Austin Rover in the last few years. On the question of exports, they have as yet been minimal. Production is concentrated for the moment on the United Kingdom market. However, the vehicle's first major public showing was at the Paris Show, and Leyland Vehicles hoped that the Road Runner would sell well on the Continent.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, are advertising spots of this type on our Order Paper in order? If they are, they could turn out to be quite a commercial proposition.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that the whole House would wish British Leyland—which is, after all, a nationalised industry—well, and wish it success in promoting this new product.

Defence Contracts: Competitive Tendering
3.33 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: 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 steps they have taken to ensure that its policy of competitive tendering for defence contracts is implemented equitably between those aerospace organisations which hold design authority for a project and those organisations which have little or no design and development capability and what is the Government's assessment of the impact of its policy in the aerospace industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, our policy is to procure our defence equipment by competitive means, wherever practicable and reasonable, in order to get the right equipment for the armed forces and the best long-term value for money for the taxpayer. The policy is applied pragmatically and equitably case by case, considering carefully all the relevant factors, including any possible consequences for the tenderers involved. Staff are working to clear guidelines on the implementation of this policy.
Competition, through its stimulation of industrial efficiency, is central to the Government's strategy for economic prosperity. We believe that the implementation of our policies for applying competition to defence equipment procurement will strengthen all sectors of our defence industries, including aerospace, and enhance their position in international markets.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply it seems to me that it is a general statement of Conservative philosophy, and I should not like to argue that; not at this stage, anyway. May I ask him whether it is not true that in connection with the major servicing of Nimrod the tender forms should have been ready in June, (the summer of this year), that they are not ready yet, and that if, in fact, work is not steered to British Aerospace before 1985, there is a very great possibility that the number of redundancies occasioned in that particular organisation will be very serious indeed? What do the Government intend to do about that? Is it true that, in view of the fact that some tenderers would not be tendering for the whole of the contract and yet would be expecting to have revealed to them design authority expertise, which may well be a threat to the future research and development in the aerospace industry, the Government are now finding it so very difficult to produce tender forms which are acceptable?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that there are a number of points stemming from that supplementary question. I was myself at British Aerospace in Manchester on Friday of last week. I am very well aware of the points which the noble Lord puts to me, and we are doing our best to proceed with this very complicated matter as quickly as we can.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister suggest to his colleagues that they again look at their policy for competitive estimates for future procurement? I ask that because, on the one hand, the actual cost of designing and producing a prototype is extremely difficult and costly on a competitive basis. Secondly, from my own experience, all our major defence contractors were quite unwilling even to put pencil to paper on a design unless they were paid in advance. The consequences, as we have seen in the contract for a trainer for the Royal Air Force, have meant that the major contractors have simply got some British rights for foreign aircraft. This development is one that will clearly be detrimental, in my view, to the British forces as well as to British employment and British industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no dogmatic basis to the policy that we are following. It is one of practical, common sense. I must say to him that, of course, if it was the case that in a particular product it was going to be more expensive through some competitive process, then naturally we would not follow that course. But all the evidence we have so far is that it is no such thing. It produces better value for the taxpayer.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, will the Minister accept that while it is important to keep costs down as far as possible, it is also important to maintain standards? Furthermore, is he satisfied that smaller companies in particular have the necessary facilities for maintaining control over standards and avoiding any danger to national security? Also, what on-the-spot checks are made to safeguard those two matters?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, naturally, we have to have regard to those considerations. Indeed, it is those sort of considerations that have caused us to have to take some time over the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, raised just a moment ago. But, of course, it depends upon the nature of the task that we are asking the company to perform as to whether or not they are capable of carrying it out, and, naturally, we have to satisfy ourselves that they are capable of doing so before we give the contract to them.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The last part of my Question asked whether the Government had made any examination of the consequences of their policy on the aerospace industry. Perhaps I may frame this in the form of a question: What effect would it have on research and development of the aerospace industry in this country if in fact the Government allow tenders to be split between sub-contractors who have no responsibility for, and have no intention of engaging in, research and development expenses such as in the case of British Aerospace? If it is the Government's intention to allow sub-contractors to take part in these tenders, and to allow the work to be split up, what is the Government's attitude to fragmenting once again the aerospace industry, which has over so many years been urged by successive Governments to merge in order to provide a competitive element in the business?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer in truth to the noble Lord's question is rather a long one which might go beyond the scope of Question Time. But the Government do see advantages from the policy we are now following, and if the noble Lord would like to have a private discussion with me, I should be very happy to show him the way.
Lord Sefton of Garston: But, my Lords, as the whole matter is so important, and if the noble Lord agrees that it is an important issue which will require some other airing, rather than at Question Time, is he prepared to issue a statement about the consequences that the Government see following their policy on the British aerospace industry?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like, for example, to table an Unstarred Question on this matter, I should be very happy to give him a full reply.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on student awards in Scotland.
It may also be of convenience to your Lordships if I announce that the Committee stage of the Food and Environment Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Brunei and Maldives Bill and the Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (People's Republic of China) Order 1984 will be taken.

Christmas Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, your Lordships may also like to know that it is proposed that, subject to the progress of business, this House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday, 20th December, and return on Monday, 14th January. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 20th December.

Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Alport: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the control and licensing of straw and stubble burning after 1st January 1989. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Alport.)
On Question, Bill read a first time; and to be printed.

London Docklands Railway (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to make emergency orders]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("after such consultation as may be practicable with the local authority for the area referred to in subsection 1(b) below").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is in a way tied up with several other amendments, all dealing with local authorities. It certainly seems from the list of amendments before us that the Bill has a great deal of inter-party interest, and at this stage it certainly does not seem a highly political Bill. We hope that it will continue along that road. The Minister looks rather doubtful. We shall wait to see what he says. So far as we are concerned, we prefer it that way, if it works out.
We feel that local authorities have not been involved in the Bill, certainly not on its face. If this is incorrect, I hope that the Minister will say so, but as I understand it, I do not believe that there was consultation with the local authorities before the Bill was published. I have a copy of a letter sent out to a number of organisations, including local authorities. It is dated 9th November, which is the day on which the Bill was introduced. I

1457
think that your Lordships will agree that it is more a statement of information than consultation. The letter says:
"It may, however, be necessary in an emergency to draw on the resources of local authorities and others who already have responsibility for the safety of food ... These provisions will not replace existing statutory functions".
But that does not cover the point of local authorities being involved and having a part to play in working out the legislation.
My noble friend Lord John-Mackie, on Second Reading (at col. 704 of Hansard) said:
"The Minister has a duty to answer the point about whether it is necessary for Ministers to have all these powers when local authorities have done the job satisfactorily until now".
In reply, the Minister said (at col. 732):
"The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, suggested, in talking about Part I of the Bill, that local authorities really ought to be given the powers which are being taken in that Part. I think the difficulty is that, while local authorities do indeed have wide powers concerning the safety of food, they are not emergency procedures. Indeed, they could not be brought into operation nearly as rapidly as would be possible under this Bill. It is really on that point that the decision was taken that it would not be so suitable to go for local authority powers".
I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider the situation. As I say, at this stage, I am not intending to press any of these amendments to a Division.
However, I would point out that county councils are emergency planning authorities and already have the expertise to deal with emergencies. Local authorities employ officers whose professional business it is to deal with contaminated food. They are thus a ready source of assistance and advice, to whom Government departments can turn. Those authorities are responsible to their local communities. Consultation with them would preserve the principle of local accountability, which seems to us to be one of the central points. I think that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee who are involved in local government will agree. Where practicable and possible, it is both right and more economic for local authorities to play their part and to be accountable.
In addition, there is a manpower advantage. The Notes on Clauses say that the change is likely to require about 16 staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and about 18 in the Health and Safety Executive. But in local authorities we have many people already doing a great deal of this type of work.
3.45 p.m.
All that Amendment No. 1 seeks is consultation with local authorities, where practicable. As we are aware, the Bill was put together with a certain amount of haste. It is a great advantage that it came to this House first so that we can go into it thoroughly. It is not clear on what ground this proposal was rejected, since, as I said, local authorities were not consulted. Had there been time and had they been consulted, I am sure that they would have pointed out that they run emergency services such as the police and fire services; and, as I said, county councils are emergency planning authorities. There is already an organised network of local authority officers on the ground. Communications should not prove difficult, having regard to the availability of modern facilities. In fact,
1458
communication could be easier within a locality than when dealing with the Government's agents.
Furthermore, information about a situation that requires action is quite likely—and I put it no higher than this, although I think one could—to emanate from a local authority and its officers in the first place, whose daily business it is to deal with such matters of contamination. For example, at the present time a local authority officer has to prove to a justice of the peace that food in the process of sale is unfit for human consumption in order to have it condemned under the provisions of the Food Act 1984; yet under Part I of this Bill, "Contamination of Food", in Clause 4(l)(a)(ii), the investigating officer may act merely on "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that food:
"may become, unsuitable for human consumption in consequence of a release of substances".
I am a magistrate and I have had a number of such cases brought before me by local authority officers. They bring them forward very rapidly. They are usually dealt with efficiently, and action can be taken by the court. They have that expertise and the experience as well. I hope that the Minister will at least consider this point. I do not think that the object of the exercise is to offend local authorities. But at the moment they have been kept out of the Bill. There is no mention of them at all, apart from the investigating officers. Otherwise, the system will work from the centre. I think that that is quite the wrong approach and, unfortunately, will add to the increasing centralisation to which one hoped the Bill would not contribute. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I support my noble friend on Amendment No. 1. I was as surprised as anyone when I read that local authority environmental officers had not been consulted. I was chairman of a public health committee for many years and know about the problems of environmental health officers. The Surveyor of 22nd November 1984 said that the Institution of Environmental Health Officers was surprised that there had been no consultation and had no idea that proposals on food were to be part of the Bill. I was absolutely stunned to read that it was in almost complete ignorance of the subject matter of parts of the Bill. If there are any experts on the subject of the movement of food, and contamination, and so on, they are to be found in the environmental health departments in the town halls. To my knowledge the public health inspectors have been arguing for years for more powers to deal with contaminated food and food that is unfit for consumption. So I should have thought it perfectly reasonable, and should be an acceptable part of the consultative process, to involve the environmental health officers.
In the Second Reading debate of this Bill, the Minister said:
"I emphasise that we shall see all these exercises, and particularly that relating to pesticides, as part of a continuing dialogue with all the different responsible interests concerned".—[Official Report, 22/11/84; col. 698]
I should have thought that that would have included local health authorities, environmental health officers, the police and other authorities who will be involved. So I hope that the Minister will have something constructive to say as to how they can rectify this

1459
omission. I suggest that they can do that by accepting the amendment.
Lord Belstead: I entirely understand the reasons which prompt the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to put their finger on the importance of local authorities in matters affecting a particular locality. Of course the Government understand that. But I think there are certain features which we come to immediately in Part I, which would make it difficult for the Government to accept this particular amendment. I wonder if I may set them out very briefly.
The first is that it is very important that the emergency procedures under this first part of the Bill should be capable of introduction as soon as possible after an incident—within hours if possible. Given this time constraint, it might not be possible to consult local authorities in the way proposed in this particular amendment. For example, a number of authorities might be involved if there were an incident affecting a large area. Alternatively, there might be some difficulty as to who should be consulted if the incident occurred offshore.
I had not entirely gathered from the speech of the noble Baroness and the intervention of the noble Lord exactly who would be responsible if there were to be an incident of this nature which occurred within British fishery limits, let us say 50 miles off the East Coast—where my own home is. I am not sure that the local authorities would necessarily fall over themselves to claim responsibility in this particular situation. That is another of the reasons why there is difficulty with this particular amendment.
There are also other reasons why I think that consultation with local authorities is not absolutely essential before an emergency is declared. While I yield to no one in my admiration for what local authorities do so far as dealing with incidents of food poisoning in their area is concerned, I suggest that they might not have immediate access to the necessary expertise to judge the implications, not only for food but also for agriculture and for fishing.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness quite understandably asked, "Well, what about the environmental health officers?" I should just like to take the opportunity to say that the Government envisage that many of the officers who would be needed for investigation and for the enforcement of this part of the Bill would come from the Ministry of Agriculture. Examples are sea fishery officers, ADAS veterinary officers and food scientists. Others would come from other Government departments—for instance, they could be Department of Health and Social Security medical officers—and also from the local authorities, we would hope, the environmental health officers.
If I may just go on for a moment, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her opening remarks talked about local accountability. It goes without saying that local authorities are, in practice, certain to be consulted and actively involved in these matters if, which we trust will never happen, Part I is brought into effect.
1460
However the situation at the moment is that at present we have no statutory plan for what would happen if there was a release of harmful substances and people were liable to eat food which was going to poison them. We rely on voluntary co-operation, usually local and, in the admirable way in which the British people always get together when there is trouble, usually it works. But, conceivably, it might not and the emergency might be very serious. If we had not taken some powers, as we are endeavouring to do in Part I, we might wish that we had done so.
The proposals in Part I which are before the Committee are simply a necessary extra measure of insurance, enabling the Government to act quickly and to impose immediate safety requirements. That could reinforce but would take nothing away from what already exists. Local authorities would still be involved in matters unless there were simply not enough time.
There is one last matter to which I must give a straight answer because the noble Baroness asked me a straight question. That is the matter of consultation. It is the case that, because local authorities are not written into Part I, the contents and the purpose of the Bill were made known to them when it was published and only on that occasion. But I do give an assurance that the Government intend to consult the local authorities on any further administrative arrangements which may be needed in association with them if this Bill passes into law.
May I come back to where I started? I do ask the Committee to bear in mind that in Part I of the Bill we are talking about a very narrow but potentially desperately serious situation. The narrowness of the situation is that it has to be an occasion when there has been a release of harmful substances and it is either contaminating or potentially may contaminate food or things which contribute to food which people might eat. It is very serious because, as we all know, if this were to happen, we should blame ourselves if we had not laid the right sort of plans.
These are situations which, as I said at the beginning, could occur outside the jurisdiction of local authorities—for instance, out at sea. It is for that and other reasons which I have attempted to deploy that, although I quite understand the case which has been made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, I do not think the Government can agree to this particular amendment.
Baroness Birk: Since, understandably, the Minister in replying to me has also taken in the arguments for Amendments Nos. 7 and 9, perhaps in reply I may deal with some of those points.
Amendment No. 7: Clause 3, page 4, line 17, at end insert ("appointed for the purpose by a local authority").
Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
First, on the point of consultation, I would say this. This is a rather odd point: the Government say that because local authorities were not written into Part I, they were not consulted. What I am now saying is that because there is a strong feeling on the part of the local authority associations and individual local authorities that they should have been consulted, I do not think it is too late now to get together with them and see if

1461
something can be worked out. Alternatively, the point that the Minister has made should at least be put to the local authority associations and they should then be allowed to come back with their own feelings and argument.
I think the Minister would probably agree that that is only fair. They were not consulted before and, now that this is all arising, they certainly should be. They are of course referred to in the Notes on Clauses, on Clause 3(1), where it is stated:
"Many of the officers would come from within MAFF (eg. sea-fishery officers, ADAS veterinary officers and food scientists) but others would come from other Government departments (eg. DHSS medical officers) or local authorities (eg. environmental health officers)."
4 p.m.
If they are contained in the Notes on Clauses which do not form part of the Bill, the Minister knows as well as I do that whatever we say and is reported in Hansard, it is not part of the legislation and cannot be referred to by the courts. That seems to me to strengthen the argument for having a further look at the matter and perhaps taking the opportunity to hold discussions with the local authority associations between now and Report stage. I am not arguing that the amendments as at present drafted are necessarily the best way of going about it. I am, however, arguing that by some means or another the local authorities should be brought in. Indeed, the first amendment—it is a very mild one—states:
"after such consultation as may be practicable",
which I think answers the Minister's point that emergency procedures should be as quick as possible. It may well be, in some cases, that the local authority can immediately deal with a situation much faster than it could be dealt with by central Government or by Ministers. The noble Lord said that consultation is not necessary. It may or may not be. If it is not practicable, it cannot take place. If, however, it is practicable, it seems to me that it is necessary to undertake it.
What we are saying here is that the local authorities—this is really going back to the beginning of the whole matter—are not covered in the Bill and they were not consulted, but, please, will the Minister take this point on board, consult the local authorities and see what arises out of the discussion? It still seems to me wrong not to have them in the Bill in some form or other but simply referred to in the Notes on Clauses.
The Minister has referred to what happens at sea. I would ask what happens now. A further amendment that I have put down is to leave out a subsection of the Bill because there are port officers and local officers who would be able to deal with the matter. I shall not be pressing that, but it is the basic principle of the whole subject that we are discussing. I wonder if there is anything that the Minister might like to say.
Lord Belstead: I wonder if I may say the briefest word in reply. It is simply this. It is on two main grounds that I am not as sympathetic as the noble Baroness would wish me to be to the first amendment. Those two main grounds are that we are talking about emergencies where time would be of the essence and
1462
that such emergencies could well occur in areas, for instance at sea, which would be outside the jurisdiction of local authorities.
Having said that, there is a third point which, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I must put to her. The noble Baroness, with her normal skill and persuasive arts, said that this is a very mild and reasonable amendment. Indeed, it is a mild and reasonable amendment as it sounds when it comes from the noble Baroness. She always puts it so well. But the noble Baroness let slip that we would also be talking to Amendments Nos. 7 and 9. And they are of a rather different hue. When we come to Amendment No. 7 we find that what the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord John-Mackie want to do is to make sure that the appointments of people who are to give advice on whether there should be an emergency will not be Government appointees but local authority appointees. The effect of Amendment No. 9 is very much the same.
For the reasons that I have deployed, I do not think that this would be appropriate. I do not say that casting aspersions of any kind on local authorities. I simply do not think that what is proposed would be appropriate to Part I. However, the noble Baroness has asked me whether the Government would be ready to talk more than they have done with the local authorities. Of course, we would. I stated in my first reply that we intended to consult the local authorities now on administrative arrangements. I am sure that the door of the Ministry of Agriculture would be open to local authority associations if they wished to talk further about this. Indeed, so would my door. I hope, however, that I have made the Government's view clear on the difficulties that we see with this amendment and with the amendments associated with it.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for his reply. He is quite right. It was not as sympathetic as I had hoped. But it was not as bad as I had feared it might be. I introduced the other amendments, perhaps unwisely, because I thought that the Minister was covering the wider field. I said—I shall say it again briefly when we come to them—that I was not too happy at the moment with their drafting because I see the point about the exclusiveness of Amendment No. 7. There are also problems in connection with Amendment No. 9.
The noble Lord has given an undertaking to talk to the local authorities. I would have thought that the last thing the Government wanted was to have irate local authorities feeling out of humour with the Government over the Bill, feeling isolated from it and also not being able to participate, and the Government not making use of the expertise of local authorities. That is what is important. It is not just a matter of status. It is a question of using people.
However, in view of what the Minister has said and hoping that there will be at least some talks and that something constructive will emerge from them, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this might be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Student Awards—Parental Contributions: Scotland
4.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the consequences in Scotland of the decision announced by my right honourable friend yesterday on students' awards. As my right honourable friend indicated, the minimum grant will be discontinued and the contribution to students' maintenance from better-off parents will be increased in 1985–86. This will not however extend to tuition fees, as originally proposed.
"The changes now proposed will involve additional expenditure on students' awards in Scotland of about £5 million in 1985–86. Just over £2 million of this additional expenditure will be met by an addition to the Scottish block following from the changes by my right honourable friend in his department's budget and the operation of the formula adjustment to the Scottish block. The remainder will be found from within the block.
"Once final decisions have been taken, I shall announce the full details of my public expenditure programmes for 1985–86 to the House. I expect to do this in the course of the next week. Subject to further scrutiny of priorities within my overall programme, it still remains my intention that additional resources will be made available to the Scottish central institutions to increase the output of engineering and technology graduates. Meantime, I am not in a position to give firm figures.
"As regards the proposed review of the students' awards system, I can assure the House that it will take full account of the Scottish higher education system, and that my department will be closely involved".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his courtesy in repeating the Statement to the House. I think the only thing we can really thank him for is his continued courtesy. He is always very courteous. The Statement itself is very thin, disappointingly vague, and really raises more questions than it answers. Yesterday, many Members of your Lordships' House went to the other place to hear the Statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in which he said that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had also decided this matter, implying that
1464
he had been involved in the decision making and the ultimate decisions on increasing the parents' contribution and abolition of the minimum charge.
What people in Scotland want to know—because education is so vital and of such importance to us—is this: "Was the Secretary of State involved?" According to all the press reports, the Statement yesterday was cobbled together between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock, when the Secretary of State was certainly not part of the group. In fact, I believe he was reading a lesson in the Crypt during the period when this Statement was made.
It is a very serious Statement for Scotland because student grants in Scotland are really the only involvement that the Scottish Office has with the universities. I welcome what little has been given to the colleges of technology. But student grants are the only point at which the Scottish Office is directly involved with universities. Therefore, as my honourable friend in another place anticipated yesterday, the idea of taking this money from the Scottish block is really not good enough. We need more information. We need to be able to compare how the Scottish grants will be affected en bloc in relation to the £21 million savings which, as the Secretary of State for Education and Science outlined yesterday, will be taken from the English block.
It is important to remember that the £6 million reduction in additional grant for equipment that the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced yesterday includes the Scottish universities; so also of course does the £3 million for the extra Science Council research grants. This is all part of the general British university system and therefore it is important that we get more information.
I represented a university constituency for over 20 years. In the past five years I have seen the real value of student grants decline; I think the figure is something like 14 per cent. This is of great concern in Scotland where a much higher proportion of students than in the rest of the country come from lower income families; the proportion is much higher than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The future of the lad o'pairts and the lass o'pairts is going to be much bleaker under this Government—and has been much bleaker under this Government—than it has ever been before.
Finally, may I say that we welcome the proposed review of the students' award system. The Minister says—I am sure with the authority of his own Secretary of State—that full account will be taken of the Scottish higher education system, and that the department will be closely involved. Does the Minister honestly believe, after the fiasco of yesterday when the Secretary of State was obviously not consulted anything like sufficiently, that the people of Scotland will be greatly impressed by that last statement?
4.13 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for the Statement that has just been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has made reference to his university constituency. The university constituency concerned is now represented by a distinguished member of the

1465
Social Democratic Party and therefore it is of some interest to these Benches that we should pay some attention to the Statement that has just been made.
We welcome very much the second thoughts of the Minister with regard to tuition fees. We recognise that this may have been caused by Back-Bench revolt, and I am only sorry that the Back-Bench revolt in the Conservative Party, which has now become highly sensitive, is not employed in other worthy causes like the abolition of regional grants or the reduction of heating for pensioners; but perhaps we can look forward to some activity on this front.
May I ask the Minister whether he can define more clearly the part of the Statement which says:
"The remainder will be found from within the block"?
Can he tell us how that remainder will be found within the block? What will be the priorities within the block, and what will be cut? May I also say that we welcome very much the assurance that there will be increased resources available for engineering and technology? An examination of incoming investment in Scotland, particularly in the high technology industries, indicates that availability of skills and trained personnel is vital to investment decisions; and considering that we have just had a cut in regional aid perhaps this assurance may compensate a little the companies which now occupy Silicon Glen or are likely to come there.
I should like to try to be helpful to the Minister. In his review of the expenditure of the universities will he look at the possibility that instead of having four or five business schools in various universities in Scotland, there should be a central business school for Scotland which would be an effective instrument in business management training and might save some cash in the process? May I also suggest that he might look at the example which has been given by Stirling University in utilisation of the campus for industrial development with the establishment of the wine laboratories? Perhaps we might look at real estate in the universities in Scotland with a view to their maximum utilisation, and perhaps they might generate some revenue. On the whole, we welcome the assurances on engineering and technology but we deplore that cuts will be enforced overall.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for the comments which they have made. I shall try to answer briefly some of the points which they highlighted. First of all, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was kept fully in the picture as to the thinking of the Secretary of State for Education, and when he decided to make his Statement my right honourable friend was made aware of his intentions and the Statement was made with the full authority and approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I must of course take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said in his early remarks—that the students of this country were suffering very badly under this Government. I would remind him that many thousands more students—I think I am right in
1466
saying 60,000 more students—are now in higher education than was the case in 1979. That would hardly reflect the sort of suggestions which he was making. Both the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked me how the savings were to be made. That point is being considered at the present moment. As noble Lords will recall, each autumn after the Chancellor makes his Autumn Statement the Scottish block is made up in accordance with a formula which applies to the various departments over which the Scottish Office has responsibility.
In 1982 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made his Statement some five weeks after the Chancellor's Statement. In 1983 he made his Statement three and a half weeks after the Chancellor's Statement, on that occasion by a Written Answer. As I indicated today in my reading of the Statement, my right honourable friend hopes to make his Statement within the next week outlining how the Scottish block allocation has been made.
Since that allocation has not yet been made public, it is of course for my right honourable friend to decide where he finds the additional £3 million by the substitution of various sums from one department to another. In reply to the point which was of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I would say that it does not necessarily follow that there would be any reduction in what will be made available to engineering and technology, as was originally-outlined by the Secretary of State. There may be a slight reduction, but that will be for my right honourable friend to decide in due course.
I note the welcome which the noble Lord. Lord Taylor of Gryfe, gave to the proposed review, and I take his point when he suggested that we should look at the possibility of a central business school in Scotland. That is a constructive suggestion which, of course, I shall pass on to my right honourable friend. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has, of course, confirmed that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be fully consulted in this process.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Government pay particular attention to the very constructive suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe? May I also ask whether some sympathy is not due to the Secretary of State for Education in trying, as I understand it, to tackle a problem which is very obvious? The problem is that the comparatively rich or middle classes have a much better chance of reaching universities than do the poor, or what are called the working classes, and, having got there, they are to a large extent supported by the taxpayers, many of whom are poorer than they are. Bearing in mind that there are many large claims upon the taxpayer—the claim to help Africa, the claim of the National Health Service and the claims of all the social services—is there not a real problem as to how we are to finance universities? I think the situation is recognised by the Government.
Will the Government not agree that it is at present somewhat unfair that those who come from homes which are comparatively affluent and have a better chance in life get a better chance still by going to

1467
universities and being supported by those who may have a worse chance? Will the Government ask the universities, which are in a very good position to tackle this matter on the broadest scale—namely, the different claims upon the resources of the country—to recommend how they think that students should be supported, bearing in mind the greater claims of other parts of the welfare services and, indeed, of education? Will they also ask the universities how, within those universities, they would propose that the funds available should be allocated?
It seems to me that this is eminently a matter upon which the universities, with their wide view of matters, should have a view; and as I understand that there is to be a general inquiry into the financing of universities, this is the moment at which they should take the widest possible look at the whole question of the demands upon the welfare state and all the other services. They should also look at the very important matter of giving more of the working class and poorer children a chance of further education. At the moment it is the middle classes who are increasingly filling further education places, in particular in the universities.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for his comments, and, of course, he has hit upon a very sensitive issue. It is true that there are many families in the land whose offspring, for one reason or another, do not make use of the facilities available at university, and yet, of course, they contribute substantially to the funding of those facilities. However, we have to get the balance about right, and I think that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education made a very courageous Statement yesterday. It is not easy for a Minister to eat humble pie, and I think that my right honourable friend made a very tasty meal of it. He did very well, and I think that we must all recognise and acknowledge that. Moreover, the fact that he did so highlights the fact that, despite what our critics may say, the Government do listen and do take notice of pressures from the Back-Benches, and we must all recognise that.
The noble Lord suggested that we should perhaps ask the universities how they consider they might best be funded. I would say to the noble Lord that, in the review which is to take place and to which my right honourable friends will be contributing, it would be the intention that as wide a body of opinion as possible should be consulted, and that the views represented by the various bodies should be considered. So if any of the universities have thoughts on this matter there is no reason at all why they should not submit their thinking to the Government.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the Minister takes too much credit for the intentions of his right honourable friend, may I point out—and this point has been so rightly and properly drawn attention to by my noble friend Lord Grimond—that the intention to help the sons of those with poorer incomes to go to university has not been carried out by his right honourable friend? He has, in fact, cut the student grants by a percentage in real terms this year.
1468
Would the noble Lord not agree that, obviously from the Statement, plans have had to be changed? I know that the Minister has not made his Statement yet, but he says here:
"It still remains my intention that additional resources will be made available to the Scottish central institutions".
Does the noble Lord not think that if his right honourable friend is eating humble pie he should pay for it? If he made a mistake, surely it would have been far, far better simply to accept that he did not know the feeling of his own party; and, instead of upsetting every calculation and every Ministry throughout the land, he should simply say that they will pay the £21 million. Is it not an example of real pettiness to say, "Right; we shall give way on one point, but we shall take it back on something else"? Would the noble Lord not agree that it looks like incompetence?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords, I would obviously not agree. Indeed, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, I think that he really is being a little churlish this afternoon. After all, the Secretary of State for Education did respond to the pressures which were put upon him and the arguments which were placed before him, and I think that we would be doing him less than justice if we did not acknowledge that. I do not think I can really add further to what I have already said on this point, but I would not agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to endorse the very constructive suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made about the possibility of a single business school in Scotland. There is a crying need for us to concentrate our business education in one place and to get a really high standard for people who want this type of provision. There is a great need, and I hope that, as a result of this discussion, the Minister will follow it up.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I shall certainly note the comments of the noble Baroness in giving her support to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in this matter. I am sure that my right honourable friends will give special consideration to the views that have been expressed.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister to clarify the matter of the review. I understood from the Statement which we had yesterday from the department of the Secretary of State for Education and Science that the review was to be of student support, of awards and grants. From the questions which have been asked today, there seems to have been some assumption that the whole of university funding is to be reviewed. May we have that point cleared up?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my understanding is that the terms of the review are still under consideration. I do not think that they have been finalised yet, and therefore I felt it worth endorsing or having recorded any suggestions which were made by noble Lords so that they could be considered in due course. Whether or not the review is to be as wide as the noble Baroness suggests, I am afraid I am not in a position to confirm. But I shall certainly pass on the comments which have been made.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, will my noble friend accept from this side of the House that we are very glad indeed that special consideration is being given to Scottish problems? There was some danger in the Statement yesterday—and I do not lay any blame whatever on my noble friend who repeated the Statement—that the needs of Scotland were going to be settled at the same time as, and in identical terms to, the needs of England. That has never been so, and I hope that it never will be so, especially as regards education, where the problems are so different. I hope, therefore that my noble friend will take comfort from the way in which this Statement has been received today. He has made it quite clear that Scottish problems are going to be tackled in a way that meets the needs of Scotland.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for highlighting that point. Of course, it is correct that in his initial Statement yesterday the Secretary of State for Education and Science indicated that my right honourable friend would be dealing specifically with Scottish matters in due course. I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, may I briefly make one or two points to the Minister which I think are very important? The Secretary of State for Education and Science was able to make very detailed statements about exactly where his savings would be. The noble Lord the Minister in this House said that he had been courageous and he referred to his having the courage to eat humble pie. I think that many people in Scotland now believe that he has put a very awkward humble pie in the oven for the Secretary of State for Scotland to digest at some point, because when the grants for Scotland are reduced we will have it on the block grant. Does this mean that housing, social work, and education will all need to be considered in order to save the little bits to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred, instead of saying, "We have made a mistake. Let it go"?
If this examination of the block grant is to be made, will there be any consultation before the cuts are made? Because it is right across the board it could affect very much more than just the university student grants in Scotland. It could also affect other parts of Scottish life. It really is rather important that we know whether there will be any consultation before the Secretary of State decides on the question of the money from the block grant in order to look after this mistake which was made and which he tried to retrieve yesterday.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I cannot accept the reference (which the noble Lord continually makes) to "this mistake". It is a matter of judgment as to whether it was a mistake or not. So far as the Secretary of State for Education and Science is concerned, in the light of the views expressed to him, he has reassessed the position and made the necessary alterations. So far as the Secretary of State for Scotland is concerned—and the noble Lord I am sure realises the position quite clearly—it is a totally different situation. We are talking about the Scottish block, the allocation
1470
of funds within which has not yet been announced; so whatever readjustments the Secretary of State may make will be entirely at his discretion. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that they certainly will be after consultation with the other Ministers who have departmental responsibilities within the Scottish Office. The Secretary of State will certainly discuss these matters with the other Ministers, but there is no need for any further outside consultation, because the Secretary of State had not finalised his figures within the Scottish block. He will now do so.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Where any person has incurred loss or damage in consequence of the application of emergency prohibitions to food that is not, or does not become, unsuitable for human consumption as a consequence of the release of the substances to which an emergency order relates, the designating authority shall be liable for the loss or damage.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I am more than conscious that every noble Lord will have uppermost in mind the tragedy that has just occurrred in India and, after our sympathy and prayers for the dead, dying and grieving in India, I hope that your Lordships will believe it correct to think about the position of the farmer whose crops have been affected, or (as in this amendment) may have been affected by any similar disaster that might occur here. This amendment seeks to protect someone whose crops or livestock have not been directly affected by such a disaster, but whose operations have been curtailed by the Minister under Part I of this Bill and under Schedule 1.
One reason for moving this amendment is to ensure that when a disaster occurs the Minister over-protects the public, rather then under-protects. When a disaster occurs, the question surely will be, "How far has the pollution spread?" I think that the answer inevitably will be an inexact one and I would expect the area that the Minister will designate under Schedule 1 will be greater than the affected area. It would surely only be prudent for him to do so. In fact, in reading the Notes on Clauses (for which I should like to thank my noble friend very much; they are enormously helpful) Item 11 certainly gave me the impression that he would over-react rather than under-react.
But what about the farmer or grower whose activities have been suspended and who at the end of the day is proved to be clear and whose crops are clean? He is being unfairly condemned and indeed penalised. He ceases production for the good of the community—albeit because he has to do so, because the Minister has told him to do so—and so surely in this case he should be compensated. The power of compensation would take away this worry from the Minister designating an area and would make him designate maybe a little wider and indeed a little more safely.
I have to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that agriculture is not like most other industries in that it cannot stop for 28 days, or for one day, and then be able to start where it left off. For instance, if a fruit farm or a "self-pick" was prohibited from selling or working under Schedule 1 when the crops were nearly ready or were ready, they would be totally worthless 28 days later. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for having put down this amendment. I mentioned at Second Reading the question of what could happen, and he has detailed it better than I did. It is a real problem. If, through no fault of his own , a neighbouring farmer sprays and it drifts over on to your farm and then the whole area is isolated (if that is the right expression) during a harvesting period or during a period when work has to be done, then there could be considerable loss. I looked for somewhere in the Bill at which to put down an amendment along these lines. It is difficult in this Bill to find a place at which to put down some amendments. We are very grateful to the noble Lord for placing it where he did. We give it full support in every way.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support my noble friend and noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley. It would seem to me that we have a precedent here. If the Minister says, "All your pigs have to be slaughtered", (for whatever that disease is called, or for foot and mouth) you then get compensation. But if your crops have to be destroyed, or you are not allowed to sell them (which, to all intents and purposes, is the same thing) as the result of some action by somebody else to whom the Minister then in turn says, "You can't do it", it is the polluter who has to pay in the end. But, surely, the taxpayer, at the beginning, should make sure that the man does not lose out.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to support this amendment. It appears to be very sensible. I hope that the Minister will accept it and will not produce the argument that perhaps there will be some other body responsible for paying damages; because other bodies can very quickly run out of money—particularly in the case of disasters of the scale that we have seen recently. In a case of what might well be a national disaster, there is no question but that the Government as a whole and the public as a whole should bear the damage suffered by the people in the same area.
Earl De La Warr: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this amendment, which deals with some important principles. I shall go no further—because it has been so well argued—than to say that I hope that my noble friend at the least will say that he can take this amendment away and have a thorough look at it. It certainly deserves it.
The Earl of Radnor: I too should like to support this amendment. I shall not say much because it has been well covered. I was unable to be here at Second Reading but I read my noble friend the Minister's speech. He said that the polluter had to pay. If there is
1472
proved to be no pollution at the end of the day, there can be no polluter, so that argument would fall down. This amendment might guard against a mistake where farmers were asked to destroy crops or stock and it was subsequently found that this was unnecessary. Therefore, as my noble friend who spoke before me said, I hope that this matter will be taken away and considered seriously.
Lord Walston: All noble Lords who have spoken so far are in favour of this amendment in principle, and I am also. I should like to put one further point which has not been mentioned here. It is quite conceivable that there is a suspected emission of something toxic in an area. The authorities—perfectly correctly—put a stop order, or whatever it would be called, on the utilisation of crops in that area for human consumption.
It may then be found, after a few days or possibly rather longer, that there was nothing toxic in that particular area and the crop is suitable for human consumption. However, by that time if it is a highly perishable crop such as peas for freezing or my noble friend's strawberries, or something of that kind, it is then too late for them to be consumed. No action would lie against the polluter because there is no polluter; but it would be unjust that the farmer himself should be penalised because of the perfectly legitimate action of the authorities. This amendment would properly safeguard the producer in such a case. For that reason as well as the others mentioned, I support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: All your Lordships have been persuasive and all have spoken in favour of the amendment, and that puts me in a somewhat difficult position because I was going to rise to my feet to say that I was not sure that I liked the amendment. Might I explain one or two grounds to your Lordships why I am worried about this? First, there is a matter of principle which many of your Lordships who are legally trained will know better that I do, and that is that there is a rule that the polluter pays. Indeed, the polluter can be and should be taken to court.
The duty of the Government is to protect the public from risk of injury. All that Part I of this Bill does is to try to put into statutory form as an insurance for the future arrangements which, because we are good at these things in this country and we get together when there are emergencies, have always been done in a voluntary way in the past. The duty which the Government feel they ought to enshrine in legislation now is a duty upon any responsible citizen even if the responsibility means some cost.
It is true that the safety measures may cover food, which means that the designation, as my noble friend Lord Stanley has pointed out, would have difficulties so far as the individual farmer is concerned. But the second point I am trying to get across is that the Government and all other responsible people really have to act on what they see as the degree of risk arising from pollution. Might I say in passing to my noble friend that there would be the best possible advice available to the Minister concerned in making a designation of an emergency area. I have heard my noble friend Lord Stanley saying on many occasions

1473
how good the Ministry's advisory service is in England where the Ministry of Agriculture, where I work, has responsibility, and the advisory service also so far as Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are concerned. There would be the best possible advice.
4.45 p.m.
In having that best possible advice, the Minister making the designation—and this is a point your Lordships have not spotted—would be able under Clause 1 (9) to revoke an emergency order as soon as possible. If, for instance, after a very few days it was found that it was not needed, or under Clause 2(1) it would be possible for permission to be given for particular operations to continue even though an emergency was on. What comes to my mind is, as my noble friend mentioned, the growing of fruit where there might be an area designated where fruit was not to be moved out but then the Ministry on the best advice would say, "It is all right to sell your apples and your pears out of that particular area provided they are properly washed and cleansed". The case which my noble friend Lord Stanley and other noble Lords have put has some answers and there are some reasons why the Government say the polluter ought to pay.
I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Walston, added his voice because he added a different and additionally difficult point, and that is what happens if there has, in a sense, been some mistake. What happens if it was thought, as has so tragically happened in India, that the whole area had been pretty well decimated and then in fact it was found that certain crops were not polluted at all? As all your Lordships have spoken in the same vein, although you have chosen different grounds from which to speak, I should be foolish not to say that I shall have another look at this point. There are problems. There is the invariable rule that it is the polluter who ought to pay. If your Lordships will allow me to take it away without giving a commitment, I shall be glad to do that, and I should at least give the undertaking that I shall look at it as seriously as possible.
The Earl of Onslow: Arising out of what the noble Lord has said, it seems to me that it is always possible that you could have a negligent polluter who is not covered by insurance. Speaking from personal experience, I know of a friend of mine whose fish ponds were totally ruined by a local authority and he had to settle at a much earlier stage than he wished to because he was simply strapped for cash. Even though he was suing those people, the insurance company were holding up on the payment, which is a common form of reaction from insurance companies. I hope that that could be borne in mind as well.
Lord John-Mackie: I do not think there is any speaker who would not agree that the polluter should pay if he can. What we are looking for is some arrangement where if he cannot pay, then the farmer or person concerned is compensated.
Lord Belstead: I said that I shall take this matter away and look at it. There are difficulties and this is why I feel that I cannot give an undertaking; but I shall look at it seriously. If your Lordships will allow me to
1474
do that, perhaps we might pass on to the next amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am grateful for the support that I have received on this amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. about the polluter paying. There is no difference here. If we can find the polluter, he should pay. The trouble is when we cannot find him or when he cannot pay. If I may bore my noble friend with one case, we had a situation in Oxfordshire two or three years ago where we had pollution and the polluter was willing to pay, but even then it took two years for the farmer to be paid. 1 wonder what would happen if we met a really unpleasant polluter who would not pay, or indeed an unscrupulous polluter who would be prepared to what I call play the courts and take the unfortunate farmer right up to the House of Lords, when usually you lose puff half way through or confidence on the costs.
I have heard my noble friend Lord Belstead being far more persuasive than he was today. I am sure he is going to get into his stride and become more so. I am grateful that he will take this point away. Perhaps he will be in contact with me before Report stage; otherwise, I may well come back with the amendment at Report. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Where any person has incurred loss or damage in consequence of the application of emergency prohibitions to food that is, or becomes unsuitable for human consumption as a consequence of the release of the substances to which an emergency order relates, but the person responsible for the substances released cannot be identified, the designating authority shall be liable for the loss or damage.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment really centres round exactly the same question as the one which has just been discussed, and many of the arguments will therefore be the same. We go back to the principle that the polluter should pay. This amendment envisages a situation where the polluter cannot be identified. I can think of two situations in which this might happen and there might therefore be embarrassment to the powers that be.
In the first situation I cannot be precise because I do not think that anything of the nature has yet happened, although I feel sure that it will soon. I might draw a comparison with acid rain which starts in one part of Europe and does considerable damage in another part of Europe. I believe that it carries heavy metals such as cadmium and lead with it, although I am not suggesting that these would suddenly build up to such an extent that crops would have to be destroyed or anything of that sort. I am suggesting—in the light of the disaster in India which my noble friend Lord Stanley has spoken about—that we really should in this Bill be prepared for anything that might happen in the reasonably near future and should not just think about accidents that have happened in the past. I can imagine a noxious emission taking place somewhere possibly in a foreign and totally unidentifiable place, probably a long way from the area where the designating authority decrees that crops and so on shall be destroyed. This is precisely the same as I imagine it must be for a Norwegian looking at his sterile lake and

1475
finding it very hard to know who was responsible for doing the damage. I put that as one suggestion to my noble friend.
Another possibility which could happen tomorrow is a noxious deck cargo being swept from the deck of a ship, let us imagine, passing down the Irish Channel and causing trouble in, for example, oyster beds, a mussel farm, a cage farm of salmon or something of that sort. I am sure that with shellfish it would quickly be said by the designating authority that these fish must be killed or whatever one does to mussels—crushed perhaps—immediately and the ship sails on and is never identified. It is quite possible to identify ships, but I am sure it is equally possible that often they get away with it. This would be an awkward situation for fish farmers or shellfish farmers caught in such a situation.
I should like to ask my noble friend to think about this very carefully in parallel with the previous amendment. If a shellfish farmer or a fish farmer is meant to insure against these contingencies, I can only say that, having had some experience of insurance of fish-farming, I think he would become bankrupt before he got any proper redress. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I should say that this will be looked at along with the previous amendment. But, in making that offer, may I repeat a point I have made before? Really we are not changing any principle in Part I of the Bill. We are trying to put into statutory form what has happened in this country where natural disasters have struck communities and the statutory authorities and the voluntary organisations have, in the way that is familiar in this country, stepped in and cleared up the mess. Everybody believes that that has been the right thing to do. People have not turned to those local authorities or to the voluntary organisations and said, "Having cleared up the mess, you must pay us compensation".
In saying that I am very ready on behalf of the Government to listen to what the Committee has said. I ask your Lordships to be receptive to that particular point. I think a balance has to be struck here. Let the Government look at what has been said on these two amendments to see whether we can find any common ground; but, in saying that, I cannot give an undertaking that I will be able to satisfy your Lordships on this or on the previous amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. I hope that he will take it away and think about this amendment carefully. I am not sure that I quite agree with him that this is, so to speak, a situation which is being re-established from what would happen anyway, but I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment and wait to hear what he has to say at a later stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2. line 44, after ("vessel") insert ("foreign aircraft, foreign hovercraft or foreign marine structure").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would remedy a drafting defect in Clause 1(6). Clause 1(5)
1476
provides that anyone who contravened an emergency order, or caused or permitted another person to do so, would be guilty of an offence. This is subject to three defences: the general defence of due diligence, which is in Clause 20; the defence of ministerial consent, which is in Clause 2(2); and the defence in Clause 1(6), which at present provides that a person on a foreign vessel would not commit such an offence if the vessel passed through a designated area without fishing and without landing anything from it in the United Kingdom.
The amendment would extend this defence to foreign hovercraft and foreign marine structures. It is necessary to exclude the operation of the powers of the Bill over them because to do otherwise would be an infringement of the freedom of navigation in 200-mile zones and innocent passage in the territorial sea. To make this defence comprehensive, the amendment would also extend it to foreign aircraft.
If the Committee accepts this amendment, I intend to introduce a similar amendment in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which would bring it into harmony with the new draft of Clause 1(6). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert (", or nothing else except make provision incidental or supplementary to the revocation,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides that an order which revoked an emergency order, or part of an emergency order, and which included incidental or supplementary provisions, would have to be laid before Parliament but would not be subject to any further Parliamentary procedure.
I wonder if I may give an example of what I mean by that. If an emergency order had to be made which prohibited the movement of food out of a designated area, a revocation order might provide that food could be moved out of the area, but only after a certain date. That would be an incidental provision, but it would, in effect, do no more than revoke the original order. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I am glad the noble Lord has given some company to that solitary phrase—"does nothing else". I agree with the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Authorisation of investigating officers and enforcement officers]:
5 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 17, after ("any") insert ("suitably qualified").
The noble Earl said: This is a very brief amendment which I am suggesting. It seemed to me that the enforcement officers and the investigating officers were in fact rather important people, and if anything went wrong with the Government's handling of an emergency such as is described in this Bill, one of the first things one would want to look at would be the

1477
people on the ground doing the job, doing the investigation and carrying out the various duties which they have to carry out. My noble friend on the Front Bench outlined exactly who these people would be. They are apparently specialists from the Ministry's regional organisations and form its Food and Science Division. I certainly would have no argument with that and would consider them qualified. But this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will go on into the future and somebody might change their mind and go and find somebody who was not qualified, either by training or by experience. I thought that really as a sort of control, the words "suitably qualified" should be put in.
In Schedule 2 these officers, I believe, are allowed to take as assistants any other person: that could be anybody taking along anybody with them. That seemed undesirable on the whole. My noble friend might well say that "anybody" might allow him to spread the net very widely and find people who are just right for the job, but I do not think that my amendment spoils that concept at all. I, and I hope other noble Lords too, would wish it to be written into the Bill that we should have suitably qualified people in these situations, where after all they have to deal with all sorts of emergencies, both known and unknown. I just feel that "anybody" is not quite good enough. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: There is nothing between the Government and my noble friend in what he wants to do. I can give a categorical assurance that the Government would never authorise unqualified persons to undertake the duties of investigating and enforcement officers. But, if I may say so, I think there is a difficulty about putting in the words "suitably qualified". When the moment comes, we do have powers of entry in the Bill—regretfully; but they are sometimes necessary. In the schedules, I think I am right in saying that there are provisions for the enforcement or investigatory officers to prove to a person who may be concerned that that is what they are.
I think that if we put in the words "suitably qualified", it would probably be necessary to show what their qualifications are when the investigating or enforcement officer knocks on the door of a particular premises and says that he has a power of entry. I am therefore in terms saying to my noble friend that I would have thought that if we put in "suitably qualified", we would then have to explain in the Bill what is meant by "suitably qualified". I hope that my noble friend will take it from me that I give an absolutely categorical assurance that the Government would never authorise unqualified persons to undertake these duties, and I trust that my noble friend may feel, with that having been said on the Floor of the Chamber, and being on the record, that the assurance is good enough.
Lord Renton: With respect to my noble friend Lord Radnor, I feel that my noble friend Lord Belstead is right to resist the temptation to do what has been done in recent statutes; namely, to go into too much administrative detail. I am sure he is right to resist that.
The Earl of Radnor: After that generous series of remarks from my noble friend, I do not think I have
1478
really any option but to seek to withdraw the amendment, although I must admit still to secretly wishing that I could see in the final Act that these people must be properly qualified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed earlier: col. 1460.]
The noble Baroness said: I shall not spend long on this amendment because we roamed over these two or three amendments when dealing with the first amendment, but I feel I must say a few words on it because the Minister, I think rather unkindly, called it a draconian amendment, unlike the first one.
Let me say right away that this is not meant to be the final form of it, but its purpose was, again, to pinpoint the involvement of local authorities in this Bill. It really raises the question, again, of why the Government have chosen to arrogate such powers to themselves at the risk of duplication and overlap of the functions and work of local authorities. This is already in place and a good many years of experience have accrued. What I am not convinced about, from the answer given to the first amendment (which I had the chance to think about during the period when the Statement was being taken), is why it should always be so much quicker, as the Minister appears to think, to get some of these other officers from the centre rather than to go direct to the local authority. After all, we do have telephones which work most of the time; we do have means of communication. If that means is not satisfactory, or if it is known that certain authorities do not have the requisite resources or the proper person, then one can go somewhere else for them.
In order to clear up the point regarding the actual wording of the amendment. I think it does, wrongly, give the impression of complete exclusivity; and, quite frankly, I do not think that we have got it quite right. However, all we would ask is that the Minister accepts the principle of local government involvement and then of course this provision would have to be worded differently. I do not think there is any more I can say about it because we covered this ground on the first amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: This clause provides for the authorisation of investigating and enforcement officers, and the difference between the noble Baroness and the Government is whether the appointments should be by local authorities or by central Government. I endeavoured about an hour ago to deploy reasons why I thought it was necessary in the very special circumstances—and they are very special circumstances, drawn very narrowly indeed—to have this as a central Government responsibility: partly because of the emergency nature of Part I and partly because undoubtedly emergencies will occur (although I wish they did not) in areas that are offshore and outside the jurisdiction of local authorities. That is the first point.
The second point is that, although I have been speaking on behalf of central Government, I would just make the point, which many of your Lordships will be familiar with, that the Ministry of Agriculture

1479
is of course devolved as regards its responsibilities. We have regional, divisional and area offices which are to be found around the country, and the staff in those offices have a very great deal of local knowledge.
May I say one final thing? Day in and day out I hear in your Lordships' Chamber a great many complaints which come from the other side about the additional responsibilities which are laid on local authorities and the diminishing amount of money they have to spend. But here it seems to me that the noble Baroness is embracing the cause of additional responsibilities and additional expense. That is something which local authorities will need to explain to us when they come to talk to us about this particular aspect of the Bill.
Baroness Birk: The Minister was talking before about "the polluter pays", but on this occasion the local authority certainly should not be paying. It would be acting as an agent of the Government in the same way as other bodies. That was meant to be a, I hope, humorous aside.
I am trying to save the Government money by using the people and the resources that are there. This is partly a cost effective exercise in getting value for money so that the local authorities will be brought in together with other agencies. Earlier in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, I think the Minister said that, having cleared up the mess, the voluntary organisations were concerned—I think he mentioned that the local authorities also would be involved—and what we were doing was putting this into statutory form. All I am saying is, if you are putting it into statutory form, at least include the people who also have a right to be involved. But since the Minister had said that he is prepared to discuss this with local authority associations, I do not think we can get any further on this occasion. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed earlier: col. 1460.]
The noble Lord said. This amendment is intended to take out a superfluous provision. Paragraph (b) of Clause 3(2) provides that a function of enforcement officers authorised under the Bill would be to ascertain if a prohibition, contained in an emergency order, or a ministerial direction, given under Clause 2(3)(a), had been contravened. However, this is already covered by paragraph (a) of Clause 3(2), which provides that a function of an enforcement officer would be to enforce such orders and directions. Therefore, the paragraph which I am seeking to take out of the Bill is redundant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to ask the Minister a question. I do not understand why sea-fishery officers need to be included. There are port health authorities and, again, there are local authority officers who are capable of undertaking these functions. Even that
1480
apart, why, when it appears to me that this is covered in the other subsections of Clause 3, does the Minister need subsection (4)? The overall functions seem to be covered and I should have thought that this would come under the other parts. I do not think that we need to rehearse the same arguments once again over the local authority involvement because it is all tied up with the others. I should like to know why the Minister needs this subsection. Is a "British sea-fishery officer" a recognised form of title or is it somebody by another name?
Lord Belstead: This subsection is included in the Bill to ensure that if an emergency arises at sea the powers of investigation and enforcement would be immediately available, if that was necessary. Sea-fishery officers can be on duty on board ship for long periods of time and it might not be practicable for them to be recalled at short notice in order to receive their certificates of authorisation. That is why this subsection is in the Bill. Incidentally, I think it is a good example of why, if we are going to act quickly at sea, it would be difficult to rely on the local authorities. I will not speak further about this because it is a point I know I have made several times already.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend could fill one of the gaps of ignorance in my mind. Is the term "British sea-fishery officer" a statutory term which has been defined by statute? If not, is it the "sea-fishery" that has to be British, or the officer, or both?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I think that it is all of it. It has to be a British sea, a British fishery and a British officer. Whether or not I am entirely right, what is certain is that if my noble friend cares to look at page 19 of the Bill, which is the interpretation clause, he will see that, "British sea-fishery officer" is there defined as:
"any person who by virtue of section 7 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 is a British sea-fishery officer for the purposes of the Sea Fisheries Acts".
Lord Hunt: This may seem a very small point but my superficial reading of subsection (4) leads me to understand that a British sea-fishery officer is invested with the same powers for investigation and enforcement as other investigating officers and may exercise those powers on land as well as at sea. But perhaps this is not the correct way to read it?
Lord Belstead: think there is a serious point here and if I am wrong I will try to repair my mistake either by writing to the noble Lord or by saying something in a moment or two. My understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite correct in what he said. That is my interpretation because the sea-fishery officer may need to find that he is exercising his enforcement powers on land as well as on sea.
For instance—I am speaking without looking at the text and from memory—I think the noble Lord and I will find if we look at the schedules that one of the powers of an enforcement officer is to require a vessel to go into port in order to find what is on board that vessel—possibly polluted fish. In order for the sea-fishery officer to be able to discharge that function, he has to lead the vessel in (or even possibly take the

1481
vessels over as a pilot to go into port) and then to continue his functions when his feet actually strike dry land. For that reason, I believe that the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is correct and I hope that mine is also.
Lord Walston: In general, I support the noble Lord, Lord Belstead on this. I think it is very important that there should be adequate enforcement. There is a shortage of suitable people for doing this. Those who are charged with the job of enforcing our fisheries legislation are few and extremely efficient, and it seems to me that they are suitable people to add to this very small enforcement body. I cannot see any useful reason why they should be excluded from adding to their work in this way.
Baroness Birk: Having now heard this and had an answer to a question as well as an explanation of the amendment, and—I hope the Minister will agree—having been the catalyst in raising the point which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think in the circumstances we have been around this point enough. I would be very interested in the answer that the Minister gives to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he has investigated the matter further. Perhaps the Minister will let me have a copy of the letter he writes to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his point about "British sea-fishery".
Lord Belstead: As no cry for help has come from the Box, I am full of hope that I have given the correct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this occasion and that I shall not be writing a letter. But if I do write a letter, I will of course send a copy to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: thank the noble Lord very much. Just a signal that I am right would be very helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Powers of officers]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("or").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of your Lordships, I shall take Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 together because they are, in effect, all on precisely the same point.
Amendment No. 11: Page 5, line 9, at end insert (", freshwater pond or freshwater raceway").
Amendment No. 12: Page 5, line 29, leave out ("or").
Amendment No. 13: Page 5, line 29, at end insert (", freshwater pond or freshwater raceway").
Amendment No. 14: Page 6, line 3, leave out ("or").
Amendment No. 15: Page 6, line 4, after ("structure ") insert (", freshwater pond or freshwater raceway").
These constitute a series of probing amendments. This part of the Bill relates to investigating and enforcement officers and to where they can go to carry out their duties properly. In reading the Bill it would appear that the whole list is comprehensive, right down to hovercraft, marine structures, and so on. I am
1482
not knowledgeable enough to see whether they would be able to enter all the parts that they wish to on inland fish farms, of which I believe there are now about 700 in the country and which cannot be ignored.
The matter did not seem to be covered by "marine structure" or by "land". I could not see that anything of freshwater fish ponds was land. A lot of ponds on fish farms in point of fact are drained, and when they are drained I imagine they become land because one can walk on the bed. A lot of raceways are not, and to collect dead fish to analyse them or the food residues, or something of that sort, would probably require someone to go down with an aqualung.
I should also point out that some fish farms, particularly carp farms, are operating in very large gravel pits. Again, they did not seem to be covered in this part of the Bill. I therefore put down this series of amendments to find out whether I was right or wrong. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Earl knows that I raised this point in a slightly tenuous way on Second Reading and he is quite right to pinpoint this issue because it should be covered. Fish farming in these areas is growing to a tremedous extent, particularly in the west of Scotland. It needs the same protection as everything else and it is best to include such a provision in the Bill rather than leave it to be covered by some regulation.
Lord Walston: I wish to add a brief word in support of the principle behind this amendment. It seems a simple one, and on these Benches we certainly feel that fish farming should be taken note of and should be subject to the same protection and enforcement as other forms of aquatic activities.
Lord Belstead: I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Radnor, and indeed with the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, that fish farming needs to be covered in the Bill when we are referring to powers of entry. However, I think that it is covered. I do so for this reason. Clause 4(1) refers to "land". I am advised that under the Interpretation Act 1978 "land" includes "water". That really is true. I thought that my noble friend was right to table this amendment and I was very much looking forward to accepting it, but because of the 1978 Act I cannot say that.
That leaves us with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about fish farming, which is now growing in popularity on the west coast of Scotland. I understand that fish farming is to be found in salt water, in lochs, and there it can be on a very big scale. To return again to the text; in Clause 4(1) there is the power to enter into any "marine structure". I am advised that that would include fish farms and the things which go with them, particularly fish farms which may need pontoons or other structures set up in salt water lochs. I am encouraged in that interpretation by looking at the interpretation clause, Clause 22, on page 20, where it is stated:
" 'marine structure' means a platform or other man-made structure at sea".
For those two reasons I believe that salt water fish farming—in, for instance, lochs on the west coast of Scotland—is covered by the term "marine structure".

1483
I understand that water—for instance, fresh water fish farming—is covered by the word "land".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is the word "land" mentioned in the schedule as covering inland water?
Lord Belstead: I understand that "land" means "water" because of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Far be it for me to nit pick on this—and there is no need for me to confirm what my noble friend said because my recollection about "land" and "sea" is exactly what he has said—but "marine structure" means
"a platform or other man-made structure at sea".
I have my doubts, therefore, whether the pontoons moored off the land on a loch such as Lochailort in Scotland, which, admittedly, is a sea loch where they are close to the sea, could properly be described as being "at sea".
Lord Belstead: Then they would be on land.
The Earl of Radnor: As a person who never understands the law, I am now even more bemused. Now that "water" is "land" and that "land" is "water" it merely shows me that noble Lords and others involved in the law are quite capable of standing on their heads and making politicians do so, too. I certainly take my noble friend's word and, as I said, these are only probing amendments. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendents Nos. 11 to 15 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): We now come to Amendment No. 16.
Noble Lords: Clause stand part.
The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry for that mistake. The Question is that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill?
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [etc.]:
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 26, after ("floating") insert ("or suspended").
The noble Lord said: My amendment has the same difficulties as had the previous amendment. I learned from the Notes on Clauses, for which I am very grateful, that the phrase,
"from a container floating in the sea"
was intended to clear up a doubt in existing law. But I wonder whether the courts would construe as "floating in the sea" a container suspended underneath a ship or even a container towed along neither on the top nor the bottom of the sea, but held by vanes. Does the noble Lord think that the courts would, in every case in the two instances I have given, construe it as a "container floating in the sea"? I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I should have thought that an oil rig might be included.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of his amendment, but I hope I can convince him that it is not necessary. The clause refers to,
"a container floating in the sea".
This phrase was deliberately chosen to cover not only those containers floating on the surface, but also those floating in the water or, in other words, a bit submerged. The word "suspended" would appear to make clear that the container is suspended from a vessel, but all containers will, in fact, be towed or propelled by a vessel; so that is covered, too.
5.30 p.m.
I think therefore the amendment does not in practice extend the area subject to control. My noble friend and the Government are at one in wanting to see the area covered by this properly expressed. I think it is in the Bill. I do not think that my noble friend's amendment would extend that area, and if my noble friend agreed, I would ask that he might consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: When we looked at this amendment we could not quite follow what "suspended" meant. We had a lot of guesses, and then somebody said that it could be something suspended at the edge of a cliff, or suspended at the end of a pier, not necessarily suspended from a boat. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, meant something like that or not.
Lord Craigton: I am quite satisfied with the reply of the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 40, after ("vessel,") insert ("foreign").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 17 and I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 18 to 25 with it.
Amendment No. 18: Page 6, line 40, after ("aircraft,") insert ("foreign")
Amendment No. 19: Page 6, line 41, after ("or") insert ("foreign")
Amendment No. 20: Page 7, line 4, after ("vessel,") insert ("foreign")
Amendment No. 21: Page 7, line 4, at end insert ("foreign")
Amendment No. 22: Page 7, line 5, after ("or") insert ("foreign")
Amendment No. 23: Page 7, line 12, after ("vessel,") insert ("foreign")
Amendment No. 24: Page 7, line 12, at end insert ("foreign")
Amendment No. 25: Page 7, line 13, after ("or") insert ("foreign")
It is not clear in paragraphs (c) and (d) (iii) of Clause 5 that the adjective "foreign" applies to aircraft, hovercraft, and marine structures, as well as to vessels. The paragraphs concerned are intended to apply only to foreign vessels and these other vehicles—British craft—are dealt with separately. This amendment clarifies the intention of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 25:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) The licensing authority shall forthwith notify the local authority for any area that it is reasonably apprehended may be affected as a result of the grant of a licence under section 8 of this Act of the grant of such licence and of any subsequent variation or revocation and all such licences shall require reasonable prior notification to be given to such local authority before any deposit of substances or articles may take place thereunder").
The noble Baroness said: This is rather different from the other amendments I have been moving. It deals with letting the local authority have information about things which are going on which may affect them. Perhaps I may start by giving an example of what I mean. Some time ago a number of local authorities elected councillors who were very concerned about the importation from Europe of materials which were subsequently disposed of at sea locally. The operation was based on a bulk liquid storage plant and at the time was the cause of very considerable concern as the material being dumped resulted in numerous complaints about the smell when it eventually came ashore.
This I imagine is just one example of what has happened and what could certainly happen in the future. What we are asking for here is that local authorities should be advised of the licences issued and the areas in which the dumping was to take place. In other words, they would know what was going on in their area and not suddenly be confronted with complaints of this sort when they knew nothing about it. There is no delay involved in this. It is really a question of freedom of information and openness. What is wanted is notification of the granting of a licence before the dumping, so that the local authority knows what is going on in its own area. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: As always, the noble Baroness makes this sound extremely reasonable, but I think there is a difficulty here. The licensing authority, I think, would be involved in a very great deal of additional work of notifying not only county, but also district councils, of all licences as they are issued, and of each operation carried out. I would just add that a lot of dumping is not only very routine, but is also very frequent in some cases. Sewage sludge dumping, for instance, is fairly frequent, and we would be talking about almost constant notifications.
I am a little mystified as to what the reason for the proposal would be, because although there would be notification under this amendment, there would not be any consultation or talk with the local authorities, at least, not in the way that the amendment is drafted at the moment. I cannot therefore see very much advantage in just notifying local authorities of the activities which are going to have to be licensed in this part of the Bill, and it is for that reason that I would ask the noble Baroness if she would perhaps withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Birk: I see the point that the Minister has made, but I think the advantage of the amendment—not necessarily in the form in which it is drafted—is that the local authority would be aware in advance of what was happening in its area. The example I gave was of where material is imported from Europe. Certainly, in all cases, it would not involve a
1486
multiplicity of authorities. It would probably involve only one authority in many cases, particularly if it is dumping at sea, and it is something I should like the Minister to have a look at, even if it is not possible in this form. The point about it is that the authorities otherwise are completely taken by surprise. They get a lot of local complaints, and they do not know what is going on in their own area.
If there is a way of doing this which does not involve quite so much work and writing, then I would be very happy about it, but I feel that when there is a situation where something has been dumped and come in on the waves of the sea, and there have been a number of complaints, the local authority naturally feels taken by surprise, concerned, and sometimes mystified. The ensuing complaints from the local authority and questions and investigation could in fact be far more lengthy and bureaucratic than if it was automatically advised in advance.
Lord Belstead: I do not wish to be too unforthcoming. I think normally I would say that I would look at it; but I think, if I may say so, that there is some responsibility on the noble Baroness perhaps just to have a look at her own amendment. I entirely take to heart the fact that a local authority representing a coastal holiday town is going to want to have every care taken so far as offshore dumping is concerned. But in order for the local authority to know what are the factors which the licensing authority has taken into account in agreeing to deposits being made in a particular area—and, as the noble Baroness will know, areas for depositing in the sea are chosen in no way at random, but with great care—it would be necessary for it to have discussions and consultations with the licensing authority.
With great respect, that is what this amendment does not say. It simply says that the local authority needs to be notified, and I really would have thought that if the amendment is to have effect, consultation has got to be written in. I cannot honestly say to the noble Baroness that I would then accept it, but I think at least it would make sense.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: May I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? What would be the situation if it was a case of dumping at sea? Certainly in Scotland coastal protection is the responsibility of the regional councils, and there might be two or three in my own area district councils who would have to be notified; they would all be affected by it. They might not agree how far they were going to respond. I would have thought that it was a little more complex than the noble Baroness is perhaps suggesting.
Baroness Birk: I am aware of that. To be frank, we do not have the amendment right. I am not happy about the way that it is drafted, but I think that there is an important enough point here for the Government to "have a look at it. I shall certainly take the amendment back and have a look at it to see whether we can reach what we are trying to get at by an easier and better drafted means. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: It would seem on the face of it that Part II of the Bill, and especially Clause 5, refers to the deposit of nuclear waste in the sea. But one knows that there is a good deal of other legislation affecting nuclear activities. I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm that in fact and in law the deposit of nuclear waste will be covered by Part II of the Bill, including Clause 5.
Lord Belstead: As I think I said on Second Reading, the depositing of radioactive waste will be covered by this Bill in the same way that it was covered by the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. A licence would be required, as in the past, and the stringent conditions agreed internationally would apply to the operation. Of course the Bill is completely without prejudice to the reviews of ocean dumping of radioactive waste being conducted internationally under the London Dumping Convention and at home between the Government and the Trades Union Congress. But the current suspension of radioactive dumping for those reasons will not be affected by the Bill in any way.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Requirement of licences for incineration at sea etc.]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert ("foreign").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: May I ask my noble friend whether Clause 6 means that ships at sea which wish to destroy confidential or secret waste, such as documents, but perhaps do not have a shredder, or, if they have one, it is out of action, cannot burn that waste, in peace or war, if that is necessary?
Lord Belstead: In Clause 6 we are talking about a particular kind of incineration at sea. The definition of this kind of incineration follows closely that laid down in the Oslo Protocol. A definition is necessary to ensure that combustion for purposes other than destruction—for instance, combustion of fuel oil in a ship's engine—is not caught. The effectiveness of thermal destruction is assured by the application of strict operational conditions.
If I may just flesh out what I meant when I said that a definition is necessary to ensure that combustion for purposes other than destruction is going on, in Clause 6 the substances incinerated are not themselves deposited in the sea, although their combustion products may enter the sea. That is the effect of this particular kind of incineration.
Lord Hawke: Has the Minister answered my noble friend Lord Mottistone?
Lord Mottistone: No. It is destruction that I am talking about.
Lord Belstead: The answer to my noble friend's question is, no; but I was too polite to put it that way.
Lord Mottistone: I am sorry. I did not hear my noble friend's last remark.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend asked me whether, if he wanted to indulge in shredding at sea, it would be covered by Clause 6. The answer to that question is, no; but I did not quite like to put it that way.
Lord Mottistone: I did not ask that. I did not ask whether shredding should go in the sea. We always used to burn confidential waste and we did not have to get special permission, a licence or anything like that. Since then shredders have been invented. But shredders are not always very reliable, so it is still necessary in warships at any rate and, I should imagine, in fishery protection vessels and that sort of craft, to be able to burn confidential waste from time to time. One does not want anybody who is unauthorised to lay hands on it. It would seem to me that that needs to be an exception to Clause 6. It is not clear to me whether it is.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to my noble friend. I think that I can be forgiven because we are still not talking about an exemption to Clause 6. That kind of destruction of documents or anything else at sea would not come into the Clause 6 kind of incineration, but it would none the less be depositing. This is where I have to apologise to my noble friend for avoiding the question that he is putting to me, which is: could that sort of depositing go on? That answer is that there may be a case for what he is saying as an exemption under Clause 7.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exemptions]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 2, at end insert—
("(1A) The conditions that an order under this section may specify include conditions enabling a licensing authority to require a person to obtain the authority's approval before he does anything for which a licence would be needed but for the order.
(1B) Approval under subsection (1A) above may be without conditions or subject to such conditions as the authority considers appropriate.")
The noble Lord said: It is essential that there are no doubts or ambiguities about the extent of our control over exempted activities. This amendment would enable us to control such activities at a local level, just as we do some operations which require a licence. In most cases, it is the district inspector of fisheries who will need to be consulted before an operation is begun. He is the man best placed to advise whether the operation should be carried out, having regard to such things as local weather, tidal conditions and the need to safeguard fisheries. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Licences]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 12, at end insert—

("(aa) shall consider the practical availability of alternative means of disposal or elimination of wastes; and").

The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. The noble Lord may say that it is covered in the Bill by a certain phrase. If a licence is refused for the elimination of waste or the dumping of something, I believe that an alternative should be suggested by the authority. Somebody should not be left high and dry with a large amount of waste. We have put down the amendment so that the authority should be responsible for giving guidance as to what to do with the waste if a licence is refused. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: In Clause 8(1) we have picked out, in paragraph (a), the chief criteria to be considered when issuing a licence, and Ministers must have regard to these. In order that an all-round assessment can be made, paragraph (b) provides Ministers with discretion to take into account anything which they consider relevant. Among these will be the appropriate criteria listed in both the Oslo and London Conventions, of which availability of alternative disposal options is one. That is the point that the noble Lord is after.
However, I should like to explain briefly, if I may, why we have not said that specifically in the Bill, which is what the noble Lord wants us to do. Firstly, it is not relevant to certain operations for which licences are issued. I am thinking in particular here of licences for the deposit of materials in connection with the construction of moorings, breakwaters, and so on. Secondly, we would not wish to list every one of the criteria specified in the conventions, and we therefore feel it is best not to single out any one of them for special mention.
Finally, I should assure the noble Lords that the availability of alternatives to the sea route is a factor that we take into account at present, and this will continue to be the case. So I am saying that in practice the particular criterion which the noble Lord wants taken into account—namely, alternative means of disposal—is always taken into account; the international conventions require that we do so. It would put us into difficulties if we wrote this into the Bill, because some of the things which are technically "depositing" are things like the building out of breakwaters and the building out of harbours, which do not come into this particular area of consideration at all. Therefore, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think—and particularly because the international conventions require it—that it is best if I simply give the undertaking that where it is necessary and right to do so the alternatives to depositing into the sea are always taken into account before issuing a licence.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Lord is so persuasive that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 20, after ("authority") insert—("(a)")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, and would speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 34.
Amendment No. 31: Page 8, line 20, leave out second ("a") and insert ("any").
Amendment No. 32: Page 8, leave out lines 22 to 24.
Amendment No. 34: Page 8, line 28, at end insert ("and
(b) may include in a licence which only authorises operations such as are mentioned in section 5(e) or (f) above or section 6(1)(b) above provisions requiring that any operation of deposit, scuttling or incineration which is mentioned in it shall take place at a specified site, whether in United Kingdom waters or not.").
This group of amendments reorganises Clause 8 and makes it clear that the licensing authority may include in a licence for loading provisions specifying the site at which the subsequent deposit, scuttling or incineration may take place. When a licence is issued for any of these activities the site at which they are to be carried out is in fact always specified in the licence. This amendment makes it clear that such a provision may be included in a licence issued to operators who load in the United Kingdom but intend to deposit, scuttle or incinerate outside our fishery limits. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 31:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 32:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert—

("( ) that automatic equipment be used for the purpose of recording the site of the operation;").

The noble Lord said: Vessels have been known to dump their waste in places other than those specified in the licence. The licensing authority will know or suspect offenders. I think they should have the power to insist on automatic position recording equipment being installed in those cases. I cannot find this provision either in the Bill or in the Notes on Clauses. So I hope my amendment will clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigton for raising this question of automatic data recorders, known as black boxes. May I first of all explain that black boxes are mandatory on incinerator vessels under the Oslo protocol, and we shall certainly ensure that incineration licences require their use.
It has also been suggested that black boxes should be used on ordinary dumping vessels. If I may say so, I think this is a less easy point. One can, for instance, think of a very small dredger, which is habitually working from a specific harbour, and everybody knows exactly where the dredging spoil will be put. For a vessel of that kind to have to have a black box, I think, would be a little heavy-handed. But my noble friend's amendment would leave some discretion in individual cases. Therefore, I think this is an appealing

1491
aspect of the amendment so far as the Government are concerned.
There is another aspect of my noble friend's amendment. It draws attention to a point in Clause 8(1): the fact that there is no express provision there for the licensing authority to include provisions in a licence; or, as my noble friend said, there is no mention of what he is getting at in the Bill. That is true. This is supposed to be implicit, but it could perhaps be clarified.
To be honest, I should like to have said straight out that I would accept my noble friend's amendment. However, I am advised that there are one or two points of both English and, as my noble friend will well know, also Scottish law which need to be looked at in connection with this particular amendment. So may I ask my noble friend's agreement, if he would withdraw it, to my taking it away and to our considering it very sympathetically? That is how I should like to leave it, if my noble friend will agree.
Lord Craigton: I am very grateful to my noble friend. All I wanted was that the powers should be there to insist on the black box being installed on the ship of the well-known naughty shipowner who was known to be breaking the law. After listening to what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 34:
[Printed earlier: col. 1490.]
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Offences relating to licensing system]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("the Minister or the Secretary of State") and insert ("one or other of the Ministers").
The noble Lord said: This amendment clarifies the drafting and is necessary because the word "Minister" is not defined in the Bill. But in Clause 22 "Ministers" is defined as being my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State. By inserting
"one or other of the Ministers,"
I think we are making the meaning of this particular part of the Bill clear without changing what was our original intention. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: There is just one very small point. I am sorry for raising another triviality, but I have been searching the Bill to see if there is any definition indicating which Secretary of State it is. There are several Secretaries of State. I think it is perfectly obvious that it is the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the other hand, the fact that the name of the Bill is the Food and Environment Protection Bill
1492
makes it just possible that it may mean the Secretary of State for the Environment. I wonder whether it might not be a good plan to add to the definition in Clause 22 by saying, "the Secretary of State for Scotland".
Lord Belstead: think there is a difficulty here in that "Secretary of State" is undoubtedly supposed to refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because we are talking about fisheries matters. On the other hand, when one looks at Part I of the Bill, there the intention was that the Secretaries of State concerned would of course extend to the Secretary of State for Wales as well, and indeed, when emergency orders are being made, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am advised that when one talks about the "Secretary of State" one does indeed mean the whole range of all Government Ministers who are Secretaries of State, from the Prime Minister onwards.
If I may say so, I think there is not only a drafting reason for this amendment but also a practical reason. That is, suppose it was necessary, very suddenly, to issue a licence under Part II—because that is what we are talking about—and it was the Secretary of State for Scotland who was needed and he was on the other side of the world. It might be of great advantage if one of his colleagues was able to stand in his stead.
6 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, for raising this point again. I raised the question on Second Reading that references to the Minister and the Secretary of State all the way through made it very difficult to follow exactly who was referred to. I cannot see the logic behind the Minister's point that particular Secretaries of State should not be mentioned. I did not follow his explanation.
Earl Ferrers: May I suggest that it would be inconvenient to insert "the Secretary of State for the Environment" because there may come a Government that decided to dispose of the Department of the Environment and put another department in its place. If you write in "the Secretary of State for the Environment" it could cause problems later. I would suggest that "Secretary of State" is the correct wording.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Might it still not be better to say, "Secretary of State" rather than "the Secretary of State"?
Lord Belstead: I have to confess that I cannot answer that question. The point that I would pick up is that of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I understand that from a drafting point of view—in other words, it is the advice of parliamentary counsel—the correct way to talk about a Secretary of State in legislation is to talk about "the Secretary of State" and to leave the Government to sort out which Secretary of State it is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 10. line 25, after ("the") insert ("national or").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
Amendment No. 37: Page 10, line 29, after ("the") insert ("national or").
Amendment No. 38: Page 10, line 35, after first ("the") insert ("national or").
These amendments correct a defect in the drafting which appears three times in this clause. The effect of the amendments is that in each case the defence provided by subsection (6) would be available if the vessel or other craft was loaded in, or towed or propelled from, the internal waters of a convention state. As it stands, the clause refers to "territorial waters". Your Lordships may be aware that these extend from "base lines" which cut across bays and estuaries and do not therefore include internal waters. Since it seems likely that the activities we are talking about here—namely, loading, towing and propelling—will occur in, or at least commence from, ports, and since ports may well be behind where the "base lines" start, it is important that the clause refers to all waters within the territorial limits of the convention state. These amendments achieve that objective. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 37:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 38:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers of officers.]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 11, line 12, at beginning insert—
("( ) Either of the Ministers may authorise any person, subject to such limitations as may be specified in the instrument authorising him, to enforce this Part of this Act; and the following provisions of the Act shall be construed, in reference to a person so authorised, as subject to any such limitations.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 39 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43.
Amendment No. 40: Page 11, line 13, leave out ("authorised by either of the Ministers") and insert ("so authorised").
Amendment No. 41: Page 11, line 28, leave out ("authorised to exercise powers conferred by this section may") and insert ("so authorised shall").
Amendment No. 42: Page 11, line 30, leave out ("exercising them") and insert ("enforcing this Part of this Act").
Amendment No. 43: Page 11, line 32, leave out ("exercise the powers conferred by this section") and insert ("enforce this Part of this Act").
These amendments make clear that Ministers have the power to authorise officers to enforce Part II and provide that officers' authorities may be subject to limitations. By "limitations" I mean, for instance, people expert in one particular field and maybe not expert in another. This and the parallel amendment in Clause 17 brings Parts II and III of the Bill into line
1494
with Part I in this particular respect; in other words, providing that officers' authorities shall be subject to limitations. The other amendments to which I am speaking are simply consequential by way of drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: May I ask the Minister, following upon the previous discussion, whether "Either of the Ministers" refers to any Minister?
Lord Belstead: I think I shall have to take advice. I have not done too badly: we have been going for about three hours, and I have not been wholly stumped. I think, however, that I am now. May I take advice and come back to it at a favourable opportunity, perhaps on the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 have been spoken to. If no noble Lord objects, I shall put the Question that Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 inclusive be agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 43:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Powers of Ministers to test and to charge for testing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Belstead: If I may take this opportunity to answer the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, as to whether any of the Ministers meant "Either of the Ministers", the answer is, yes.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Does the noble Lord not mean the opposite—that "Either of the Ministers" means any Minister?
Lord Belstead: I feel sure that the answer to that question is also yes.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Particulars to be contained in Registers]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 31, line 39, at end insert—
("10. The results of the toxicity tests carried out by the authority on wastes in order to assess their suitability for dumping at sea.")
The noble Baroness said: In view of the little exchange that has just taken place, I look forward to the debate on Amendment No. 47 with some interest. Amendment No. 44 is really part of a wider debate on the availability of information which will come in later amendments. This particular point was raised at Second Reading. In response to a suggestion that there

1495
was no particular reason why information about toxicity of wastes dumped at sea should not be available and also a request for the content of guidelines to be used in the issue of licences, the noble Lord the Minister replied at column 734 that the guideline would be safety. This is not satisfactory unless the standards of safety are open to scrutiny.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Protection, in its second, seventh and tenth reports, has consistently recommended that this kind of information would be of value to enable the Minister's standards to be independently checked. The RCEP's reports cover a period of 12 years. During that time, the complexity and quantity of dumped wastes have increased considerably. The Government based their case for secrecy on the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961. I repeat: 1961! Even in 1972 the validity of the arguments about secrecy were being questioned. Surely in 1984 we can ask the Minister to take a fresh look. The amendment would not cause extra work since the information that we seek will have been disclosed and recorded at the time of the licence application. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support the amendment. I have in front of me a telex on FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of the United States. On the question of information on tests and toxicity, they are extremely forthright. I suspect, having read this, that they are equally forthright on similar sorts of tests for toxicity for dumping at sea, and if they do not have a special Act on it they will certainly have the Freedom of Information Act.
Therefore, it would seem to me that if we can get the information out of the Americans and somebody then wants to dump it here because they think, "Oh, well, it's a bit more secret here", it might be slightly easier to get away with it here because people would not be able to question it. That is the first point.
The second point, which also comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, says, is on the question of the testing of data for pesticides—when we get to Clause 15. It would surely be very important that there should be a Community-wide, maximum information directive upon this. Therefore, would it not be wrong on our part to pass an Act which is restrictive and then have to pass another one when finally there is a Community-wide directive? This is something which surely affects the Community in a very big way.
Lord Belstead: I am a little perplexed about the noble Baroness's references to secrecy, because the results of the toxicity tests are already included in the public register and would continue to be disclosed under the Bill. I must confess that we envisage that item 4—description of the waste—will include this information, although it is not specified because we were trying to keep the list as simple as possible. However, I think we do need to clarify this point. It is perfectly reasonable that the noble Baroness should put it forward.
I am certainly willing to accept this amendment, but I should like to make it subject to minor changes to the
1496
drafting to take account of the fact that not all licence applications require a toxicity test. If the noble Baroness will accept my response in that way, then I shall come forward with some wording, about which I shall consult the noble Baroness, so that it would be ready for the Report stage.
Baroness Nicol: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, and in that case I shall withdraw the amendment in its present form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Repeal of Dumping at Sea Act 1974, consequential amendments and transitional provisions]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 12, line 19, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply corrects a wrong reference to the Control of Pollution Act 1974. This really is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Control of pesticides etc.]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No, 46:
Page 13, line 7. at beginning insert ("in order to safeguard human beings (whether as operators applying products, as food consumers or otherwise), livestock, domestic animals, beneficial insects, wildlife (i.e. non-target flora and fauna) and the environment generally (e.g. soil, air and water) against risks which could arise from the use of pesticide products,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which I must say we consider very important in a Bill which is really giving the Government power to govern by regulation. In fact, nowhere does it give any real guidance, either in the Title or at the start of Clause 15. There are plenty of precedents for such guidance. For example, in the Food Act 1984 and the Consumer Safety Act 1978 the principles on which regulations may be made are clearly stated. The wording in the amendment is drawn from the agreement, the code, which the manufacturers operate at present and which has worked satisfactorily.
I think it is a matter of simple common sense and principle that it should be stated what the regulations are about—not that the Government may make regulations. This is enormously important, and there is very wide public interest. Actually to regulate without laying down the principle on which the regulations should be made appears to us to be a grave mistake. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I should like very briefly to support this amendment. This is not because I introduced the Consumer Safety Act into your Lordships' House, but because the amendment sounds to me to be good, common sense. It is a pleasure to be able for once to support the noble Lord. Lord Mackie of Benshie.
Lord Melchett: I wonder whether it would be sensible to take an amendment down in my name later on the Marshalled List—Amendment No. 102—with this amendment, because it also aims, by way of a new clause, to set out general objectives which the Government should follow in making orders under this part of the Bill. If the Minister thinks that would be sensible, I should be happy to speak to that amendment now, in order to save time later; but I am willing to listen to what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I think it goes a fair bit wider, maybe for good reasons. I should have preferred not to take that amendment with this one, but I shall not stand in the noble Lord's way if he wishes to do so.
Lord Renton: I am not certain whether or not this amendment is needed. I should like to hear more about it in due course from my noble friend. I think that the Bill as it stands needs some explanation and clarity in order that we can be sure that it gives enough protection to human beings when eating their food. For example, the November issue of Europe 84 says, on page 18:
"When you next crack open your breakfast egg, be ready for a mouthful of furazolidone, nicarbazin, nitrofurantoin, chloramphenicol and perchloroethylene",
the point being that these are various substances which are fed to chickens in order to kill various pests from which they may suffer.
I do not say that all those substances are fed to any chicken simultaneously, but that is the range of substances known to veterinary surgeons for that purpose. Of course, what is good for the chicken is not necessarily good for the egg or good for the consumer of the egg. Therefore, to the extent that this amendment is to safeguard human beings, I think the matter is at least worthy of consideration.
Lord John-Mackie: For once, I should like to congratulate my noble kinsman and his two co-amenders on bringing this forward. Something like this should go into the Bill. I am not sure whether this is the right place but, as we all know, Part III is the most important part of the Bill, and to start with this certainly would remedy the fact that there is nothing on this point in the Bill. I have looked at my noble friend's amendment, No. 102. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, it goes a bit wider than this one. We should certainly support this going at the beginning of this particular part of the Bill.
If I may, I should like to criticise the use of brackets in this Bill. What is the matter with a good old comma, so that all these brackets the noble Lord has put in could be left out? I do not know who the drafters are. Subject to the removal of the brackets, we would support this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has put down this amendment; it is to guide the Minister in the making of regulations. My noble friend Lord Renton said he did not know whether or not it was needed. I suggest that it is not needed, and I suggest that it is not needed
1498
in this particular form. If I may say so, it is fairly sloppy drafting because if we look at line 3, it says:
"domestic animals, beneficial insects, wildlife (i.e. non-target flora and fauna)".
As your Lordships know "i.e." means, "that is". So it would read:
"[that is] non-target flora and fauna".
The target flora and fauna are also wildlife and therefore to describe wildlife in that way would be wrong. It then goes on to refer to:
"the environment generally (e.g. soil, air and water)".
In other words, it reads:
"[for example] soil, air and water".
What about the other parts of the environment which are not given as examples? Are they included in that prohibition or not? It then goes on to say:
"against risks which could arise from the use of pesticide products".
If those words are included, they virtually totally exclude all pesticides, because all pesticides could possibly have a deleterious effect.
I am quite certain that the opinion of the House on Second Reading was that there is a danger as regards pesticides and what we have to do is to find the balance of advantage and disadvantage and come down on the side of the balance of advantage. But if we are to exclude all pesticides which could possibly produce bad effects we shall curtail their use totally. I hope that this preamble—and personally I do not like the idea of putting a preamble in front of a clause anyway—will not be included.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Let me assure the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that this is the preamble to the code which has protected him to his evident good health for the past 20 years or so.
Lord Melchett: take the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, about my Amendment No. 102 being more detailed and if it be convenient to your Lordships I shall leave that amendment until we reach it in the Marshalled List.
My criticism of Amendment No. 46 would be very similar to that of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; namely, it is too vague and not nearly clear enough in its drafting. I do not think that it provides effective enough guidance to Ministers when they draw up the regulations. In particular, in contrast to my amendment, there is the absence of the need to ensure:
"the availability of an adequate number of appropriate pesticides for agricultural and other use".
Surely that should be one of the objectives of the regulations, but there should also be a number of others as well.
However, as regards the general principle of an amendment of this kind, it seems to me to be absolutely vital that, if Parliament is really going to give Ministers the extraordinarily wide powers to draw up regulations which this Bill apparently does give them. Parliament should give Ministers some objectives, some guidance about the purpose of the regulations. After all, as I understand it at present, there is really nothing in the Bill to prevent a Minister drawing up regulations which would make pesticide use almost impossible for any agricultural purpose

1499
whatever. There is nothing in the Bill which says that the Minister should not do that. I suspect that every time we ask the Minister during our discussions on this part of the Bill whether such and such a practice is covered by the regulation-making powers in the Bill, the Minister's reply will be, yes. We had that experience on Second Reading when, for example, the Minister said that aerial spraying was already covered by the Bill although that was not generally recognised until that point.
Therefore, as regards the general principle of including an amendment of this nature, it is absolutely vital that Parliament gives Ministers some guidance about the objectives that they should have in mind when drawing up these regulations. I cannot believe that Parliament would allow the Bill to become an Act without such objectives being put into the Bill at some point.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to ask my noble friend whether there are any precedents as regards this matter. There must be regulations which Ministers draw up as regards human drugs, veterinary drugs, fuels or whatever. There must be oceans and tonnes of regulations on these types of subject which are covered by Acts of Parliament. What do other Acts of Parliament say? Do they or do they not give Ministers parameters according to which they should issue regulations? I must admit that if they do not do so I suspect that they ought to. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this matter. It is a bit vague just to say, "Go forth and govern New South Wales". You ought to be told vaguely how you should do it.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I fear that my noble friend is going to have a hard task judging between two of his predecessors in his eminent office, because I am afraid that I am going to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In my view, something like this ought to go in as a preamble. I am bound to say that it attracts me. The reason I prefer it to Amendment No. 102 is that Amendment No. 102 is put forward as a new clause and I do not think that we want that. However, we do want a pointer to what the regulations are aimed at achieving and, therefore, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept something like this amendment, be it with the commas, colons and brackets removed. Those are matters which can be tidied up.
On Second Reading, speaker after speaker made the point that everything to do with this Bill depended on the regulations, about which, of course, we did not know anything. This amendment seems to me to form a backcloth to the whole purpose of the regulations. We have had it since Second Reading and we have also had many amendments put down which we are about to discuss and which are designed as potential regulations. Moreover, we have had—or at least some of us at any rate have had—what I think is called the "statement of intent" which my noble friend was kind enough to circulate. Having had all that I feel very strongly that a great responsibility lies upon us to do something which is extremely difficult, and that is to strike a fair balance between the interests of what one can describe no better than the environment, and the
1500
interests of practical—and I underline that word—present-day farming.
My noble friend has an immensely difficult task. The regulations must be explicit but not so restrictive that manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and users of pesticides become just plain bloody-minded about them. Of course I cannot speak for the distributive or the manufacturing side, but I do claim to be a fairly practical farmer. I do my best to keep up with the Mackies! I am one who, like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has had the rewarding task not only of having farmed for a very long time, but also of having engaged in administrative agriculture at the Ministry.
I am bound to say that, as the Marshalled List stands at present, some amendments or some potential regulations go beyond reasonable lengths. Even Amendment No. 66 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asks just a little too much not only of a practical farmer—who probably does not have a secretary as I suspect the noble Lord has—but what is far more likely, of a farm steward who will probably be in charge of the work.
6.30 p.m.
I said at Second Reading that I would probably support the keeping of records and I would say that the record of what is actually sprayed is essential—the name of the field and the crop that is in it. all right; and the date that it is done. But I really think that to have to say the time of day. the personnel employed and the weather conditions—then I can see that we shall all have to buy ourselves anemometers to be able to say what was the speed of the wind while it went on. That, I think, goes a bit too far; just as I am concerned about (I think it is) Lord Melchett's Amendment No. 60, the restrictions on spraying adjacent to the highway. We have advanced to such an extent recently in Scotland that we no longer have highways. Thanks to the Roads (Scotland) Bill, which your Lordships may recall, we now have nothing but roads. There are motorways, there are streets, there are private roads and bridle tracks; but they are still all roads.
I think it may be perfectly reasonable where you may have a single road through a farm to have your "No Spraying" up to the edges; but where you have a farm—and many I am quite certain exist which are criss-crossed by roads and footpaths and so on—then I think the loss would be so considerable that we are going out of what I call the "reasonable and fair". And what about the case of a road which in fact I have—and I suppose it would be a highway in England—a private road owned by me? It is still a road. I would highly resent not being enabled to spray fairly near it.
Having said that, I come back to the balance. I expressed my views on Second Reading on aerial spraying. Quite frankly, I do not think the statement of my noble friend's intent, the widening of powers which he suggests, goes far enough. I should like to see him go further. Still I am not convinced that in these days of shorter straw, higher tractor booms and so on, one needs aerial spraying in arable areas. Having said that, I come back to my plea that we have got to try to strike a fair balance.
Earl Peel: I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. A lot has been said on this. I should simply like to say that I think that some form of definition behind the regulations would be eminently sensible. I should not like to say at any stage which way this particular amendment would go. We have heard one version from Lord Mackie and we have heard another from the noble Lord opposite. But I think that in principle this would be eminently sensible and could only help everybody concerned with this Bill.
The Earl of Cranbrook: In framing any preambling phrase of this nature I think that particular stress must be put on the useful word which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. This is the word, "non-target". It must be the aim of an efficient farmer not to waste his pesticides on non-target organisms, and it must also be the aim of those engaged in pesticide research so to manufacture their products that these are efficient in so far as they work selectively against only those organisms which are their targets.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before I am sure whether I agree with a great many noble Lords that a preamble of this sort is desirable, may I ask the Minister whether he feels it is possible to define in this kind of way the objectives of the Bill? I think that I gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that he is not completely sold on this particular wording. But if such a preamble is possible, clearly, crisply and all-embracingly, to describe the objectives, I should be very willing to go along with it.
Lord Belstead: We are starting on Part III of the Bill. I wonder if I might say one thing of general application before I reply on this amendment. From various parts of the House on Second Reading the criticism came to the Government that we had put Clause 15 (which is the enabling provision for the making of regulations) into the Bill without really giving any indication as to how those regulations were to be drafted. In reply on Second Reading, I said that we would endeavour to go point by point through the Government's intentions so far as the regulations were concerned. I used the word "intentions" advisedly because I believed, and still believe, that it is going to be very difficult for Parliament, and much more difficult for all those who are interested in the regulations, if we tie the thing up so tightly before we make the regulations that there is no room for genuine consultation between the time that this enabling part of the Bill is enacted and the time that the regulations are made.
In order to try to show good faith in this matter, I endeavoured to circulate this morning a paper running to 16 paragraphs called Statement of Intention in relation to the regulations to be made under Part III. I sent it to all noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading and all noble Lords who have their names down to an amendment under Part III. I regret to say that I left out a page of this and that had to be sent later on, but I hope that all the relevant pages are now in your Lordships' hands. I apologise that it has come so late and I can only explain that one of the reasons for that is that your Lordships may remember that, under
1502
the Pesticides (Safety Precautions) Scheme, when clearances are given it is necessary for nine different organisations (of which the Ministry of Agriculture is one) all to agree that clearance is a good thing. We therefore had to have a very considerable amount of consultation before we sent round this modest paper.
It is indeed modest because it is trying to do something on which my noble friend Lord Stodart has put his finger; namely, to maintain a balance in these matters. This the Government are certainly going to try to do in discussing Part III. A balance is needed between the interests of people who believe that pesticides have to be treated with the very greatest care because the vast majority of them are dangerous and the interests of those who are having to use pesticides in order to see that their products reach the consumer in very good condition. Therefore, one needs a balance.
They were just a few words of general application, but, in the same way as we have put Clause 15 into the Bill and perhaps have not been as specific as we should have been—and we are now, of course, going to become more specific as I hope the Statement of Intent shows because that is the way the debate in your Lordships' House is going to go—by the same token we did not include a statement of aims at the beginning of Clause 15 because we felt that we might thereby curtail the scope of Part III of the Bill by too narrow a definition.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy has asked the direct question, "Do the Government now feel, having listened to this short debate, that we can in fact define objectives?" I have noticed that my noble friend Lord Peel and my noble friend Lord Stodart both feel that it can be done and that the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and his noble friends are trying to do it is the right way. I cannot in any way complain that I have not been given notice of this, because the noble Lord, Lord Walston, made this very point on the Second Reading, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. They pointed out that, under the Pesticides (Safety Precautions) Scheme, the objectives of that scheme are set out. Lord Walston went on to comment on that occasion that the stated objectives of the PSPS are very comprehensive and a good statement of objectives. He and his noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie who have moved the amendment this evening have now repeated them in Amendment No. 46 as a prelude to Clause 15.
If I may be allowed to say so, I think there is perhaps some non-parliamentary language in the amendment. My noble friend Lord Ferrers, I think, was right when he said that some of the words need to be looked at carefully. I am not sure whether the parliamentary draftsman would approve of "non-target flora and fauna", even though that is a concept which we need to incorporate.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is in the Committee and has Amendment No. 70 down; there is also Amendment No. 75, in the name of the noble Lord and my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Monk Bretton, which has a bearing on this; and Amendment No. 76 as well. Speaking for the Government, I should like to hear what is going to be said on those amendments before even beginning to

1503
make up my mind as to whether the words in Amendment No 46 are absolutely right.
I should therefore like to accept this amendment in principle and to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, whether he would agree that between Committee and Report stage we could have a discussion as to whether, in the light of the debate which will take place, the wording which he and his noble friends have chosen is right or whether it needs some amendment, and anyway as to whether we can make it so that the parliamentary draftsmen would approve it. But I should like to make it clear that in principle the Government would wish to accept Amendment No. 46.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must thank the Minister and those other noble Lords who have spoken in support of the principle. I took the wording from the previous code. Obviously, it may not fit in parliamentary terms and may not please parliamentary draftsmen. I am delighted with the Minister's assurances, and I look forward to seeing what is produced. I can assure him that I am feeling so well about this that I can agree that all they say about him is true. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment may I make one suggestion, which is supposed to be of a helpful nature? Although the wording may be suitable for a code of practice it may not, despite what my noble friend says, be suitable for inclusion in an Act of Parliament. If my noble friend thinks it right to incorporate the principle, would it not be better if he put in words such as, "the Minister shall take account of various items in making the regulations? To put in the words, "In order to safeguard", is a platitude, and it ought to be more strictly worded. I hope my noble friend will consider that.
Lord Renton: There is a further matter which has not been referred to in this important debate which I hope my noble friend will bear in mind when considering the follow-up, as he has undertaken to do. Regulations will be challenged for their vires—in other words, whether they are within the intention of Parliament and the expression of the statute—by those who may be adversely affected by them. Therefore, the regulations should be drawn as widely as possible; otherwise, people who have done damage or who may intend to do damage, and who are not well intentioned, may evade the provisions of this part of the Act, and that would be a great disaster.
Lord John-Mackie: I, too, should like to thank the Minister for being so accommodating on this. The main thing is that we agree today on the principle of it, that there should be a preamble, and the Minister has offered to consult with my noble kinsman about the wording. I think we should all accept it and thank him very much indeed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: For the second time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 13., line 7, after ("Ministers") insert ("and the Secretary of State for the Environment").
The noble Baroness said: In view of the earlier discussion on one Minister being all Ministers and one Secretary of State being all Secretaries of State, I wonder whether I ought merely to let this amendment go. I think that perhaps the Minister did not quite mean what I wish him to mean in this context. I should like to move Amendment No. 47 and speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 136, with your Lordships' leave, because I think that this would save time.
6.45 p.m.
Amendment No. 72: Page 14, line 8, at end insert—

("( ) In exercising their powers under subsection (1) the Ministers shall consult with the Secretary of State for the Environment.").

Amendment No. 136: Clause 22: Page 20, line 40. after ("State") insert ("for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland.").
These three amendments are a phased attempt to secure that the Department of the Environment is statutorily involved in the drawing up of regulations. We make the point later on in the composition of an advisory body, but that will be a matter for a separate debate. There was general agreement at Second Reading that the Department of the Environment should be included in the consultations and discussions, and indeed in the implementation of the powers in this Bill.
Public concern about the use and abuse of pesticides has been aroused by a consideration of environmental aspects as much as of those of health and safety. We recognise that the agricultural industry is the greatest single influence on the natural environment—sometimes for ill, often for good. In fact, many of the things we now defend stoutly in the natural environment were in their day agricultural invasions, and we do well to remember this when we attempt to limit what the agricultural industry is doing. Be that as it may, it is indivisible from the natural environment.
The Minister, in his opening speech at Second Reading and again when winding-up, emphasised the Government's wish to protect the environment. It therefore makes sense to have the closest possible consultation with the Department of the Environment on the operation of the powers of this Bill. These amendments will ensure that the Department of the Environment is fully aware of the content of the proposed regulations and can ensure that environmental considerations are properly represented. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Could my noble friend explain about these nine Ministers? I was somewhat shocked to read in his notes—for which, again, I thank him—that there would be nine separate Ministers to be consulted. My noble friend has just said that one of the reasons why we have only just got the notes is because nine separate Ministers had to be consulted. I shall not go along this line too far on this amendment, but when we come to deciding on new pesticides and new methods of applying them I am worried if we shall have to consult with nine separate Ministers. I should like to know whether he really means that he has to consult with nine separate Ministers.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I could answer the last question first. We intend that the system of getting a unanimous decision from the nine departments mentioned in the notes which have been circulated to your Lordships will continue to be necessary when talking about clearances for pesticides. We believe that this is right from the point of view of human health, animal safety and protection of the environment. But that is a headache for us, and not so much for my noble friend.
So far as this amendment is concerned I shall not go over the question of the definition of Ministers which we talked about earlier, but may I go straight to the intention of the noble Baroness in moving the amendment; namely, in wishing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to be properly involved in the strategy of Clause 15. There is a drafting problem here in that Part III of the Bill extends United Kingdom-wide, as indeed does the Bill, so we are talking about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. I am not sure that the drafting would do. It goes without saying that the Secretary of State for the Environment would be consulted on the making and the implementation of any regulations affecting the environment.
In this context your Lordships might like to know that the Department of the Environment already plays a major role in the control of pesticides because it is one of the departments which has to agree to clearances under the PSPS and supplies a representative as an assessor on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.
The fears which the noble Baroness may have that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would not be involved in the strategy of Clause 15 are misplaced, if I may say so. So far as agreeing to clearances is concerned, I have given an absolute assurance that the situation will continue which has pertained until now; namely, that the Department of the Environment is one of the nine bodies which has to agree to clearances for pesticides.
Lord Melchett: take the point that the Department of the Environment is involved in the clearance of particular pesticides, but surely, in drawing up the regulations, there is a rather more fundamental point. I am still a little confused about exactly what role the Department of the Environment will play in that. I understand that it will be consulted, and I think that is all the noble Lord said. But I think he would agree that there is a difference between the Secretary of State and his department being consulted when detailed regulations are drawn up and the Secretary of State for the Environment jointly agreeing the regulations, approving the regulations, with a number of those Ministers responsible for agricultural matters in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that, if I understand the position right, while the Secretary of State's department may be consulted, he and other environmental Ministers in the United Kingdom will not be involved in approving the regulations before they are brought before Parliament. That seems to me to be a point which would be worth taking on board because, given that the effect of pesticides is as great on the environment as it is on the agricultural industry, in my view the Secretary of State for the Environment and
1506
other Ministers should be equally responsible for approving the regulations and agreeing them, and not just be one of the nine departments which are consulted about these matters.
I looked to the detailed Notes on Clauses—I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord for the copious information we have been given by him and his department on the Bill—but in regard to the definition clause where "Ministers" and the "Secretary of State" are mentioned it simply says that this is necessary to clarify which Ministers are responsible for the actions provided for in Clause 1 and the various subsections, without actually saying which Ministers are involved. Thus the Notes on Clauses give one absolutely no help at all in this particular respect.
Lord Renton: I listened as carefully as I could to what my noble friend said, but I was still perplexed at the end of it to know which Minister or Secretary of State would be responsible for laying the regulations before Parliament. In your Lordships' House we do not have to worry very much about which Minister we question because all questions are prefaced with the words, "To ask Her Majesty's Government". But in another place it is very important that when a Question is tabled it is tabled for the responsible Minister. Also, even your Lordships, if I may dare to put it that way, may wish to make representations to the responsible Minister about the contents of the regulations before they are published. To which Minister or Secretary of State should we write? Whatever the statutory technicality may be, I think we are entitled to know to whom we should look as a matter of responsibility for these regulations.
Lord Belstead: May I first say that the relationship between the two departments, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, is close, and evidence to that effect has been given by both departments to the Select Committee in another place looking into the working of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that both departments have pointed out that there is a good basis for making that assertion, in the sense that the Minister of Agriculture has recently set up what is known as an environmental co-ordination unit. That unit is able to have a close working relationship not only with the Department of the Environment, but also with some of the agencies which look to the Department of the Environment for their funding, if they are statutory agencies, or voluntary agencies, which receive grant aid from the Department of the Environment. In these ways the setting up of a special unit in the Ministry of Agriculture to try to co-ordinate environmental matters within the Ministry of Agriculture has improved the closeness of the relationship between the two departments.
I think it is important for me to have said that because while this Bill goes through—if it goes through—your Lordships' House and another place, obviously both departments will be looking carefully at the debates which are taking place. Then there will come the moment when the regulations have to be made. As my noble friend Lord Renton asked, who will actually make the regulations? Because this is the Bill of the Minister of Agriculture it will be the

1507
Minister of Agriculture who will make the regulations. But I should like to say that if it is felt to be appropriate, there is not the slightest reason why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment also should not make the regulations under this particular part of the Bill.
Lord Melchett: I hope the noble Lord will not mind my mentioning that apart from evidence to the Select Committees of Parliament, there have been the reports of two Select Committees of your Lordships' House this year. In both cases the Select Committees said that while relationships between the departments might be close, they could be, and should be, closer still in future.
Lord Renton: There seemed at one time to be a danger that that which was everybody's business would be nobody's business. I think we now have it quite clear from my noble friend that the Minister with the primary responsibility is the Minister of Agriculture.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: During the debate on one of the Select Committee reports I said that obviously the answer was to set up an environmental department within the Ministry of Agriculture which would stress this importance. I think that the Minister said that the conflict between the two had been largely resolved, and it must be right that there is one executive department applying the actual regulations and laying down the regulations, with the statutory components and indeed the content agreed by the environmental section within that ministry.
Baroness Nicol: I confess still to a slight unease, but I should like to read very carefully what has been said by all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. May I take this opportunity to say that the document which, I regret, came too late today to be absorbed appears to be an excellent document. At this point may 1 also pay tribute to the Notes on Clauses which are extremely helpful, clearly written and very full. I thank the Minister for them. Despite all that help, I am still a little uneasy about this, but at this stage I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think this might be a convenient time to take the dinner break. Before I beg to move that the House do now resume may I suggest that we do not return to this Committee Stage before 8 o'clock? I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Lochmaddy and East Loch Tarbert (Improvement of Piers &c.) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Brunei and Maldives Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords. I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (People's Republic of China) Order 1984
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved. [38th Report from the Joint Committee (Session 1983–84).]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order be approved. The purpose of this order, which is to be made under the Consular Relations Act 1968, is to enable us to give effect to our obligations under the consular agreement concluded with the Chinese Government earlier this year. The agreement allows China to establish a Consulate-General in Manchester in return for a similar post which we wish to open in Shanghai for the more effective promotion of our export trade to that country.
The privileges and immunities accorded to foreign consulates in the United Kingdom are governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the relevant provisions of which are scheduled to the Consular Relations Act. However, it can be agreed bilaterally, within the limits prescribed by the Act, that a higher scale shall be conferred. The present order provides that where we allow a Chinese consulate to be set up in this country, that post and the persons connected with it shall, on the basis of reciprocity, be accorded a level of immunity which approaches, though does not precisely match, the diplomatic scale. The effect of the order will be quite limited so far as the number of Chinese officials are concerned. Under the terms of the consular agreement, the complement of the Chinese Consulate-General in Manchester may not exceed 10 consular officers and 20 employees.
Orders of similar kind have been approved by Parliament in 1970 and 1978 for the purpose of implementing consular agreements concluded with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries. The order now presented will secure for our Consulate-General at Shanghai reciprocal benefits, notably in the field of immunity, which will be greatly to its advantage in furthering our commercial relations in China, and safeguarding the interests of British nationals in that country.
The consular agreement with China guarantees precise time-limits within which the arrest of any of our nationals by the Chinese authorities must be

1509
notified to our consul and within which the consul shall be given early and frequent access to the persons detained. As a result, both the consular section of our embassy in Peking and the consulate-general in Shanghai will be able to render assistance more promptly to people who find themselves in this unhappy situation. The increased standard of immunity conferred on a Chinese consulate by the present order is, of course, closely related to the provision on arrest which I have just described, for unless our consular officers and staff are to enjoy a status which will enable them to carry out their duties without interference they will in turn be unable to give the necessary help to British nationals who may find themselves in trouble with the Chinese authorities. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved. [38th Report from the Joint Committee (Session 1983–84).]—(Baroness Young.)
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this order and for explaining its provisions in her characteristically clear way and in such concise terms, too. I should also like to welcome the order itself. It marks a further stage in the development of what I believe are productive and happy relations between our country and the People's Republic of China and it represents another tangible example of the way in which these relations have been developing.
I must be careful not to overstep the bounds of order by dwelling upon another tangible example of these developments—the agreement on Hong Kong—especially as your Lordships will have a chance next Monday to debate that matter fully. But I think I can tonight go so far as to note that this consular agreement, which was signed on 17th April this year, was signed on the second day of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's April talks in Peking on Hong Kong; so it was a happy forerunner of that more major agreement, which we have had a chance to welcome already.
It is good to know that our consulate in Shanghai is being reopened and that the equivalent Chinese consulate-general is being established in Manchester. I wonder whether the Minister is able to give us any approximate idea of when, assuming Parliament approves this order, the two consulates-general are likely to be operating.
I take it that so far as the number of consular officers and other staff at the consulates-general are concerned, and which have been mentioned by the Minister tonight, both Governments must be satisfied that the maximum numbers allowed under the agreement are sufficient to meet their needs; otherwise I assume they would not have agreed those limits. But I wonder whether the Minister could say whether she expects that the consulates-general are likely to be operating at or around those strengths which she mentioned, right from the start.
One of the features of this, if I may say so, most acceptable order which will perhaps be most welcome to your Lordships is that it is not necessary for me to spend more time on it other than to join the noble
1510
Baroness, Lady Young, in commending it to the House.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I, too, join the noble Baroness in commending the order to the House—that goes without saying. I do have one or two questions to ask because both Houses have in recent years, rightly in my view, taken an increasing interest in the pattern of diplomatic and para-diplomatic, including consular, privileges and immunities in this country. I think it would be of advantage to the House and to the public, if they choose to read Hansard, if the noble Baroness could tell us something about the general pattern and how the arrangement with China fits into it. So, I will put to her certain questions and I should like to preface them with the remark that we on these Benches (if there were any others of us here) share the general good opinion of our relations with China at the moment and believe that those relations should advance in intimacy and efficacity as fast as possible, and we are glad that this arrangement is part of them.
My questions refer to the general pattern and have nothing to do with China particularly. There are, of course, infinite gradations of privilege and immunity, and it is easier to understand the general pattern perhaps by looking at, to coin a phrase, the relativities rather than at the absolute position of a given country such as, for instance, China in this order.
I will come to my questions. First, can the noble Baroness confirm what I believe is the case, that all consuls-general of all countries in London have something very close to full diplomatic privilege and all have the same degree of privilege and immunity, and that therefore we are talking now only about consuls—that is, provincial people, heads of consular missions in provincial cities, starting with Manchester and going on?
I have quite a lot of questions coming up, and my next one is whether these consular immunities and privileges are always, and with all countries, reciprocal whatever their degree.
Now I come to the crux of the questions which I think are of importance: does any group of countries have greater consular privileges and immunities than the generality of countries, and, if so, what are the countries in that group? If there are more than two groups—as it were, a kind of privileged group and a less privileged group—how many groups are there, and which countries are to be found in each group? Following from that, rather naturally, why are there different groups enjoying different degrees of consular immunity and privilege, and how did they come into existence? Lastly, which of these groups, if indeed there are a plurality of groups, will China fall into?
That is the end of my list of questions, and I hope the noble Baroness and her governmental colleagues here and in another place will not think that it is an impertinent or irrelevant question because, given the increasing difficulties this country and others have had—and let me repeat this has nothing whatever to do with China—with regard to safe administration and preserving the safety of their own citizens in the face of the growing privilege of immune representatives of other sovereign states, I think it is right that Parliament should be as fully informed as possible about these matters.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for their reception of this order. As they say it does mark a new stage in our relations with China, and this is to be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me two quite specific questions about the order. He asked, first, when is it expected that the two consulates might open. I can tell the noble Lord that as soon as the British and Chinese Governments have notified each other that the procedures required by their respective national laws have been completed, the consular agreement will enter into force and the way will then be clear for the two Governments to determine by mutual agreement the dates on which their respective consulates-general will open. Preparations for opening our consulate-general in Shanghai are currently in hand. We hope that they will be completed in the first part of 1985. The time-table for establishing a Chinese consulate-general in Manchester is, of course, a matter for the Chinese Government. We have not so far been notified of any firm decision.
The noble Lord also asked about staffing levels when the consulates-general open in Manchester and Shanghai. Article 4 of the consular agreement stipulates that no more than 10 consular officers and 20 employees shall form the complement of each post. The Chinese Government have not announced when their post will open, and its staffing level has yet to be made known. Initially, the number of staff in Shanghai will be well below the limit provided for in the agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me a series of questions. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of them because they go slightly wider than the particular order that is in front of us, but I will attempt to answer them all. The first question concerned whether all consuls-general of all countries in London have something near to diplomatic immunities and privileges. I can confirm that nearly all countries would have their consuls in London named on the Diplomatic List and they would therefore be entitled to privileges and immunities on the full diplomatic scale of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. I can confirm that, as the order has said and as I have indicated, the cases are reciprocal.
The noble Lord then asked whether some countries have greater immunities and privileges than others. I can tell him that there are broadly three groups of countries. The first group contains most countries which have adopted the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. There is a second group, which includes certain Western European countries and the United States, which has privileges and immunities slightly above the Vienna Convention on the consular relations scale. Thirdly, there are Communist countries where the consulates have privileges and immunities on the diplomatic relations scale or nearly so. The reason why there are different groups is that each case is considered separately and circumstances can vary. But I should like to confirm that the principle of reciprocity applies in all cases.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me into which group China might fall. It would be into the last group of the
1512
three that I have named. This would include Communist countries which, as this order indicates, have privileges and immunities on the diplomatic relations scale or very nearly so. I hope that that has covered the questions that have been asked.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for answering my questions so very fully and helpfully. I believe that her answers will be of considerable public interest.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.15 until 8 p.m.]

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
8 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 13, line 7. leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, by 31st December 1985").
The noble Earl said: I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for one or two years now and there have been more amendments on the subject of leaving out "may" and inserting "shall" and vice versa, than most noble Lords have had hot dinners. The purpose of this amendment (both to say "must" and to give a date) is to ask the Minister whether we can have draft regulations which people can examine before they are actually made into regulations and, above all, a timescale for introducing the regulations.
The good aspect of this Bill is that it seems to have the agreement of everybody in regard to its objectives, leaving on one parameter the eco-freaks and on the other parameter the chemical cowboys. That seems to be the basis of a potentially good Act. I see the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is grinning, possibly thinking that he might be classed as an eco-freak. For the sake of this Bill I shall leave him out of it.
Lord Melchett: I was grinning only because someone on the noble Earl's Front Bench happened to point to me when he said that and I, in turn, pointed to the noble Earl, which I am sure he will agree with.
The Earl of Onslow: I think it worth mentioning that I have had briefs from the CLA which states that it,
"welcomes the Government commitment to regulation. However, the contents of the regulation remain the crucial factor and we shall be scrutinising them carefully when the drafts are published".
The NFU says:
"Whilst these principles can be readily agreed by most interested parties, the fact that the Bill is of an enabling nature only leaves many vital questions unanswered. We therefore believe that it would assist all concerned for the Government to publish a draft of the regulations that they are contemplating making under the Bill as soon as possible so as to facilitate the debate on the primary legislation itself.

1513
The RSPB states:
"The ultimate success of the Bill will depend wholly on the nature of the proposed regulations and the steps taken to enforce them"—
and so on.
At the moment, as drafted, Clause 15 is not, in my view, strong enough. Until we have the draft regulations published and a timed parameter as to what they are, I do not think that the Bill is worth a great deal. I beg my noble friend Lord Belstead to answer as helpfully as he can on this point. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I support my noble friend and, as he has quite rightly said, this is an enabling Bill and the importance of the regulations is paramount. It is, therefore, with some—I shall not use the word "suspicion"—concern that these matters have a habit of lingering on. It is for that reason I have put my name to this amendment and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will, as my noble friend Lord Onslow suggested, give us a clear indication as to how soon the regulations will be published.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for moving the amendment briefly, but very much to the point, and I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for speaking likewise. First, I think I am right in saying that if one looks at enabling legislation, one sees that the power of the Government, through the legislation, to make regulations is almost invariably a permissive power, and not mandatory. Therefore, turning to the first point on this amendment, which seeks to supplant the word "may" by the word "shall", I ask my noble friends to focus on the fact that there is a problem from the point of view of precedence with putting in here a mandatory provision.
I add to that that however strongly we may feel about the use of pesticides—and I know from considerable experience that both my noble friends feel strongly about them—there is not reason enough in this Bill to depart from the use of the word "may" and to go towards the word "shall".
Secondly, I quite understand that my noble friends and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who arc also signatories to the amendment, have included in the amendment the proposal that regulations shall be made by 31st December 1985, because they want to make sure that the intentions of the Government are genuine. I should like to make the point that I hope that the statement of intention in relation to the regulations which I have circulated to your Lordships today shows that we are thinking in detail, that we are prepared to try to answer all the questions which will be put to us in both Houses of Parliament, and that we shall be ready at the end of the day to have a final round of consultations with all interested parties in order to put the regulations into effect.
However, there is one problem with putting the date of 31st December 1985. Not only are we going to be, from a manpower point of view, under great pressure to do that, but we also have the constraints of international agreements. As my noble friends may know, there is the agreement on residues which is at the moment being negotiated within the European
1514
Community and which is not yet ready. We must have regard to that agreement before we put into effect the provision in Clause 15 enabling Ministers to specify how much pesticide or pesticide residue may be left in crops, and so on. Incidentally, it will be the first time in this country that there will be statutory provision in legslation for pesticide residues.
Furthermore—and I say this quite genuinely—we have to wait for the FAO and UNEP initiatives on exports to the third world before we can finally make the exporting regulations which will fall under this Bill. There is, therefore, genuinely an international problem from that point of view.
There is one other point to make to my noble friends on the question of putting in "shall" instead of "may". This is supposed to be a long-term Bill to try to put into legislative form for the first time rules about pesticides and, as your Lordships know, their efficacy and their use, in a way that has not been done before. It would perhaps almost be asking for trouble to suggest that by putting in the word "shall" we would be able to say that we can make regulations which would be carved in tablets of stone for all time; in other words, when the regulations are made they will be subject to change as the years go by. That is almost inevitable. It is for those reasons, therefore, that I should like to ask my noble friends not to press for putting into the Bill the word "shall" and the date.
My noble friends will say that they need an undertaking from me, and the undertaking is this. We are absolutely committed to the making of regulations under this Bill; we would not have introduced what is really quite a difficult Bill unless we had been so; we are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to take into account what both Houses of Parliament will say so far as the main intentions of the Bill are concerned; and we have said—and I repeat it again on the Floor of the House—that there will have to be exhaustive consultations again immediately the Bill goes through so that regulations can be made as swiftly as possible. We will then do our very best to see that the regulations are made as quickly as may be; and before either of my noble friends jumps down my throat and asks, "Come on—what do you mean by that?", what I mean is that we are committed, after a detailed and wide-ranging public consultation on the regulations, to make regulations, as we hope to do next year after completing the consultations.
We cannot guarantee that all the regulations will come into force by 31st December 1985. It may be necessary to provide periods of grace before certain controls are enforced; but we envisage that the Bill will provide powers for the foreseeable future, and we are determined to get on with the regulations next year as quickly as possible, once the Bill has passed through both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Henley: Before my noble friend sits down, can he confirm for my own benefit, and probably for others, that the existing voluntary arrangements will continue in effect for some considerable time—certainly until the new regulations are brought into force—if this Bill is enacted?
Lord Belstead: There will not be a loophole in that way. I am glad the noble Lord has asked me that, and

1515
we shall make sure that there is not. So far as concerns the difficult question which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put to me on Second Reading—about how you deal with the transitional period when you have pesticides which have been cleared under the PSPS and when they are statutorily cleared under this Bill—I think that is a matter I should like to come to on a later amendment.
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Lord a question about this, and then put a point to him? I ask that because there are really two parts to this amendment. The question is: have I understood it right that, in practice, what the Government are intending to do is to introduce a series of regulations? With some, like the regulations on residues, they intend to wait for European or international agreements, as with the regulations which will deal with export to other countries. They intend to wait for international agreements, so there will in fact be a series of regulations, possibly appearing over a period of years. That is the first question, just to make sure I am right about that.
On the point I would like to make to the noble Lord about "may" and "shall", he has said that the Government will be introducing regulations, and he has said quite rightly that he would hardly have bothered to introduce this difficult Bill if that was not the case. That is all that putting "shall" in the Bill suggests will happen—that the Government will introduce regulations. I really cannot see the difficulty, unless the noble Lord is saying "Well, we want the flexibility at some stage in the future to withdraw all the regulations, so that there are no regulations there at all". That would be the only argument in practice, so far as I can see, for keeping "may" in the Bill, and I think that would be an undesirable power for the Government to have—to withdraw all the regulations and to leave pesticides quite unregulated without coming back to Parliament for power. That seems to me to argue for putting "shall" into the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: If I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, yes, it is the case that we would envisage not a series of regulations but regulations which I very much hope will come in next year. There may be—indeed, there will be—exceptions to that, however, and the exceptions that the noble Lord has put his finger on as a result of the examples which I endeavoured to give are, for instance, maximum residue limits and arrangements so far as exports are concerned, because we are restrained by international agreements.
Secondly, if I may underline this again—because I think it is very important, too, from the point of view of my two noble friends who have moved this amendment—our intention is that we complete the consultations in order to make regulations next year. However, for the reason I have just given we cannot guarantee that all the regulations will come into force by 31st December 1985.
On the final point, with respect, I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is being, perhaps, uncharacteristically, a little unfair. My noble friend
1516
Lord Renton has now returned to the Committee, and in his presence I think I am right in saying that almost invariably one finds that enabling legislation has a permissive power—"may" and not "shall"—when regulations are going to be made under a Bill. That is the advice I have received, and I would be interested to know what my noble friend Lord Renton says on that.
The reason in this case is not because either this or any future Government would then wash their hands of this particular Bill, but because we are legislating for the future and if you put "shall" into the Bill you could then find that you have regulations which really tie you so tightly for the future that you would wish that you had not made them. I think that is an undesirable way of proceeding.
Lord Renton: Although I am sure my endorsement is not at all necessary, may I say that I do believe my noble friend Lord Belstead is right in that, I would have thought, 19 cases out of 20—or perhaps even more often than that—this is a true enabling power, and the Minister is given a discretion as to whether to make regulations, and when. That is the legal position. In practice, however, one does find that when that power is given it is almost invariably used.
Lord Belstead: If I may once again intervene, I am grateful to my noble friend, with his experience of drafting, for saying that, and I should just like to make the point that I think this is the first time in public and on the record that the Government have laid it on the line that it is their absolute intention to get on with these regulations next year. I like to think that this is the impression which has been given to everybody interested in this particular field of operations; namely, pesticide legislation. I think it is the first time that we have said on the record that it is our intention to do this. Although there will be exceptions—and I do not hide that from your Lordships—I hope at the same time that your Lordships will accept the good intentions of the Government in what I have said this evening.
Baroness Nicol: I am sure no one doubts the good intentions of the Government, but there will be extensive consultations and there will be pressures put on the Government from some of those consulted. It does seem to me that the word "shall", the imperative in the "shall" suggested by the noble Earl, refers to the making of the regulations as much as it does to the content of the regulations themselves, and I see no reason why it should not go in as a clear declaration on the face of the Bill of the Government's intention that the regulations will go forward even if the date is unacceptable, because by December 1985 the Minister may feel that he is not in a position to make all the regulations that he will eventually wish to make.
There are a number of regulations which could go ahead as of next month, I suspect, and with the word "shall" the making of them could go ahead from then. We are creating a gap by leaving this as much in the air as we appear to be going to leave it. We are leaving a gap for all kinds of clever dodges to escape the intentions which have been declared during the discussions on this Bill. I must say that it would be very disappointing if we did not finish this Bill with a clear statement of intention using the word "shall", and

1517
with as clear as possible a commitment to a date for at least some of the regulations.
Lord Melchett: come back on the question of "may" and "shall". I should not do so if it was not for the fact that I am quite certain in my own mind that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is wrong about this. He suggested that putting "shall" in the Bill would tie us down in future as to the contents of particular regulations. With respect, that simply cannot be right. What "shall" does at this particular point in the Bill is to say that this and future Governments will produce regulations. It does not say anything at this stage about the contents of the regulations. They could be general, narrow or cover a whole range of other things. It would simply say that there will be regulations. With respect, I think that the noble Lord is wrong in what he said just now to the Committee about its tying us down to a particular set of regulations which would then be fixed. That cannot be right.
While I am on my feet, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there are, as I think he acknowledged, cases in legislation where Ministers are under an obligation to produce regulations. I personally would say that this Bill should be one of those cases. I think that it is generally agreed that what the Government are doing in this is taking very wide powers, regulation-making powers, to legislate on an extremely important matter of public policy—something which many people felt should have been done in the face of a detailed Bill, with a large number of clauses covering all the detailed points which we are now going to cover in amendments.
I understand the reasons why the Government have not done that, but as they have not, it seems to me to strengthen the argument for insisting that in the Bill there definitely will be provision for a set of regulations, whatever their content, after the Bill has become law.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that it was Stanley Baldwin who said, "Trust the people". I think that my noble friend Lord Belstead has given pretty strong and concrete undertakings that these regulations will be drawn up as expeditiously as possible. On that point, I personally am prepared not to get into an argument on the "may" or "shall" case, even though I think that possibly intellectually my noble friend Lady Nicol may be right, and even the noble eco-freak, Lord Melchett, is possibly right as well.
However, the one point that I should like to extract from my noble friend on consultation is an answer to the question: can we have a sight of the regulations well before they are published, so that people can talk about them? Can the maximum amount of consultation be in public, and can we avoid the obsessive English disease of secrecy? All these consultations seem to have to be behind closed doors—whisper, whisper! The more that these regulations are discussed in public, the happier we shall be when we get an agreed solution at the end of them. With that, I would be content to withdraw the amendment unless my noble friend would like to give some undertakings on it.
Lord Belstead: I should like to take away what my noble friend has said and think about it. The last point he has made is an important one. It is easier to do in this House than in another place. May I think about it?
The Earl of Onslow: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 13, line 8, after ("importation") insert ("exposure for sale").
The noble Lord said: Although it is now contrary to the voluntary scheme, until this Bill becomes law it will be legal to import and sell agro-chemicals without submitting them for a clearance. That means that agro-chemicals which have not been cleared are now advertised. I have here an example of that. Here is an advertisement for imported Cypermethrin. It is stated to come from an unknown continental source. It is not cleared under the voluntary PSPS scheme. It is advertised at about half the price of ICI and other manufactured Cypermethrin products which are cleared under the scheme. This is not the sort of thing that we want to have when this Bill becomes law. But after it is law, without my amendment it will still be possible and perfectly legal to continue with that advertisement, leaving the offence of selling actually to happen on the site when the goods are passed for sale. My amendment would strengthen the effectiveness of the Bill and close a loophole. I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the reasons for this amendment. We are advised by our legal experts that in this context the word "sale" includes the concept of "exposure for sale", and thus already meets my noble friend's concern. To deal with the point of the advertisement which he mentioned, any person who supplied a prohibited pesticide in order that it might be offered for sale would also be committing an offence under Clause 15; and so we are doubly protected.
However, I have then had my attention drawn to the fact that under the Weights and Measures Act there is a difference between "sale" and "exposure for sale". I should like to take this point back and consider it, if my noble friend agrees, and again take counsel of our legal experts to see whether it is necessary.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, produced an advertisement. Does "exposure for sale" mean advertising a product? "Exposure for sale" is a difficult term. I should have thought that "advertising for sale" was more suitable, but I do not know.
Lord Craigton: I was so glad to hear what the Minister said. This was a very happy argument at the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I have looked it up, and that Act includes the words, "exposure for sale". There were very good reasons indeed for putting them in. The reasons are exactly the same in this case. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment on that statement from the Minister.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, with the leave of the

1519
Committee, I should like to raise a small issue that was touched on briefly by my noble friend the Minister on Second Reading. It is the sale of approved pesticides which are imported but where the instructions are not in English. It is commonplace. I want to be reassured that the regulations will also deal with that issue. It is more than confusing for the practical farmer when cheap imported pesticides which are approved are sold to him with instructions only in a foreign language. I think that there may be reasons for limiting the sale of imported pesticides, other than those based on the chemical constituents and the activity of the pesticide itself.
The Earl of Swinton: I shall take account of what my noble friend has said. If necessary, Clause 15(l)(c) provides powers to impose conditions on the advertising of those pesticides which Ministers have approved for specific uses. I think that that means that they can say that they must be advertised in English.
Lord Craigton: beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 13, line 8, after ("supply") insert (", export").
The noble Baroness said: On Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed anxieties about the export of chemicals which were considered unsuitable for use in this country but which could apparently be exported for use in third world countries. The introduction of the word "export" at this point would give the Minister power to examine such proposed exports and to use his common sense or good offices to see that such exports either came within international legislation to which we had subscribed or simply came within the realm of common humanity.
8.30 p.m.
I think it was generally agreed that the use and abuse of some of our pesticides in third world countries is causing an enormous problem. I have been given different figures for the number of deaths caused by the misuse of chemicals which were not properly understood in the country in which they were received, and I therefore do not propose to quote them, because the sources give different views: but there is no doubt that it has caused a problem. The unfortunate disaster in India which has happened this week, it is true, was not caused by imports but by chemicals manufactured there. However, it does show how much expertise is needed in the handling of the very deadly weapons which we are producing. They are weapons which have a good use; otherwise, we would not be producing them. Nevetheless, when they are misused they are dangerous and they need control.
We have a duty to the third world countries—I do not think anyone denied this, including the Minister, at Second Reading—to see that we are responsible in our attitude to exports. I understand that discussions are going on at the moment in a number of ways to reach an agreement about the control of exports. The most favoured solution, particularly by Oxfam, who
1520
have a great experience in this particular field, is the FAO Article 9, "Information Exchange". I will not read it all to the Committee, but it is based on (I think the phrase is) prior informed consent; that is, that the importing country must be fully aware of the properties of the chemical which it is about to import, to the extent that it can decide whether or not to import it.
Article 9, which is under consideration—I do not know whether or not we have yet agreed to be a signatory to it—says:
"No export takes place without prior notification to the importing country government advising of the domestic regulatory status of the pesticide and the hazard which led to such restrictions"—
in other words, that we should tell them why it is restricted here and give them the opportunity to refuse it if that is what they want to do—or,
"without the explicit consent of the importing country".
These seem to me minimum requirements which we should apply to our exports. We cannot do this unless the Bill which we have before us includes power for the Minister to control exports. Amendment No. 50 would give him this power. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I put my name to this amendment because I know that there is considerable concern about pesticide and fungicide use in third world countries. I equally know that if they had been more efficiently used in Ethiopia then probably Ethiopia would not be in the situation that it is at the moment. I know that point was brought out by certain noble Lords at Second Reading.
I also know that in a way we in this country are sufficiently advanced and sufficiently rich to take into account environmental factors which, if you have hoards of starving peasants, you may not be lucky enough to be able to take into account. All of these points have to be borne in mind.
But the particular point I should like to impress upon my noble friend on the question of exports is this. Chemical companies may have stocks of out-of-date chemicals which worked in a fairly blunderbus-like fashion in this country, and they or merchants may be tempted to "flog them off" cheap to somebody else who will use them unhappily and with a lack of care. That is a very different question from the question of the control of, for example, a particularly nasty fly, as I think there is, which attacks rice and does untold damage. This has to be hit with very high toxic doses to stop it; but I know my noble friend will enlighten the Committee on that point.
The reason why I helped to table this amendment was that I hoped to ascertain the Government's thinking behind the whole question of exports to third world countries and underdeveloped states.
Earl Peel: In support of my noble friend and the noble Baroness, I, too, put my name to this amendment. I feel very strongly that there is the need to control, and if necessary to prevent, the export of pesticides, particularly to third world countries. I think the danger is that companies may be tempted to offload pesticides which are unacceptable in this country, for whatever reason that may be, to third world countries. The point that really concerns me is

1521
that the third world countries very often do not have the level of infrastructure in their environmental protection agencies properly to scrutinise these products.
I accept that there are undoubtedly cases where pesticides, which may be environmentally unacceptable in this country, have been used in third world countries to save life and, of course, in all matters there has to be a balance. However, I do feel that those countries should be made fully aware of what they are undertaking and what the potential dangers are.
I could not help noticing that in the information that we were given on the various clauses—and I should like, again, to congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench for giving us such a wealth of information on these points—it stated in subsection (5)(b):
"It is expected that Ministers will wish to require exporters to notify the Government of impending exports.".
"It is expected": the words rather worry me. I sincerely hope my noble friend can give us an assurance that the Government will be far firmer than that when these regulations come into being. We have a responsibility to other countries as well as our own.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I, too, should like to support this amendment. It is of course my noble friend Lord Walston who has his name down as supporting it. It is absolutely vital that the Government have the power to prohibit export. Although there are other amendments down later about the regulations and about the labelling that we would like to see, at this stage I think it is essential that the Government say that they wish to take the power to prohibit exports.
We have a great many cases of many of our big firms very responsibly working along with FAO to produce regulations. I think the least that the Government can do in backing these international obligations to the third world is to see that they have the power at least to make exporters give all the information required to the Governments concerned.
There is a case, and there can be a case, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has already said, for a cheaper form of chemical or perhaps a more dangerous form of chemical being used in a country which perhaps is wholly dependent on a crop attacked very viciously by a tropical insect, whatever it may be. Again as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has already said, we can afford to be choosy, for example, between DDT and APHOX in this country. It may be absolutely vital for the whole economy of a third world country to use the cheapest and most effective chemical for the job. That is up to them. But it is up to us to see that we can prohibit the export of totally unsuitable chemicals, and at least see that full information is available to the users in the third world countries. I think this is a good amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I am afraid I must strike a contrary note here because I find myself not in agreement with either of my noble friends, nor with the noble Baroness opposite. I feel we are treading on rather dangerous ground here, controlling exports and telling other countries how to do their own business and how to look after themselves.
1522
I follow all the expressions about looking after them, and so on and so forth, but my mind goes back to an expression which I was taught when I started farming, that the buyer should beware—caveat emptor. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that if a number of farmers said all the things about their cows that they were exposing in the market, they would never sell any at all. But that is by the way. It is probably wrong. The large companies in this country, and probably the small ones too, are responsible and do behave responsibly so far as exports are concerned. It is then up to the importing country to let their regulations hold sway. We have enough difficulties sometimes in carrying out our own legislation and our own regulations without having to worry about others.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to say, since I have been referred to, that the cow is not nearly so dangerous an animal as some of the chemicals that are sold to the third world.
Lord Melchett: There is a real point of difference between what the Government have so far said about controlling exports of pesticides and what my noble friend on the Front Bench said in moving the amendment—namely, the importance of prior informed consent. I simply do not agree that insisting not only on exporters giving information to an importing country but also on an importing country consenting to the imports is interfering with that country's business. We are leaving the power whether to say yes or no to an import entirely to the importing country.
I accept, however, that it is important to go down that road through international agreement. There are a number of expressions of international intention which give support to prior informed consent. They are sufficient for us to insist at least that the power to impose prior informed consent on exporters from this country should be provided in the Bill. So far as I can see, that is not the case at the moment. There is power to ask exporters for information but no power to prohibit exports unless the consent of the importing country has been obtained.
I should like to mention some of the international moves that seem to support what I have just said. My noble friend mentioned the FAO code which, in its latest draft, as I understand it, would require prior informed consent of the importing country before an export could take place. In addition, in October last year, the European Parliament passed a resolution that supported the principle of prior informed consent. In fact, the resolution was passed unanimously. A large number of Members of the European Parliament from this country voted in favour of it. The United Nations General Assembly, a year before, in 1982, passed a resolution which referred to pesticides and also supported strongly the principle of prior informed consent. More recently, just last month, in fact, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature passed a resolution, again strongly supporting the principle of prior informed consent.
With all those international moves afoot and widespread support in many different forums for the principle of prior informed consent, it seems vital that that power should be included in the Bill. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, did a good job by inserting a word of caution here. While fully agreeing with the principle that we must see that everything that we export is suitable for the job, I should not like to think that we might scare off developing countries from perfectly genuine and useful sprays by means of something in the Bill or something in the regulations that might do just that. I well remember the great argument about banning DDT. A medical officer representing some African countries put forward a very strong case when he said that the amount of good that the use of DDT did in controlling mosquitoes and thus controlling malaria far outweighed the danger. As he puts it, you would have to breathe in so many millimetres a day and live for 150 years before the stuff would kill you. We should be careful about the wording of any regulation so that it does not scare off countries that really need some of these sprays.
Lord Craigton: I had thought that prior informed consent was covered by subsection (5)(b) on page 14. That is why I did not put down any amendment to this effect or speak in support of it.
Lord Melchett: Surely the answer is that subsection (5) deals only with the provision of information and, so far as I can see, does not give the Government power to ban exports even to fulfil international obligations. What concerns me is that it looks quite possible, not to say likely, and I would certainly say it was desirable, that international obligations will arise that require more than just the provision of information.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend gets up, may I add one point that follows upon what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, says? It is the reverse of his point. If products get the stamp of approval and prior informed consent, they will be more saleable and more satisfactory to people than if there were no proper regulations made.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I have finally got up my Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for bringing forward the amendment. It gives the Government a chance to put forward what they feel about this matter and to correct several misapprehensions that both she and her noble friend Lord Melchett have mentioned.
I can understand the concern felt by noble Lords that we should apply the same conditions to the export of pesticides as we do to distribution and use at home but we must remember that other countries, particularly in the third world, have many different types of pests and diseases to cope with and that the rules we make for home use may be quite inappropriate abroad. It is essential in some tropical countries, for example, to have available powerful pesticides in order to help contain the spread of malaria by the control of vector insect populations; or to preserve crops from diseases and predators which are capable of destroying an entire harvest in a very short space of time. In the case of some products, such as DDT—I was glad that both the noble brothers Mackie mentioned this—there is no effective alternative overseas, while there is in the United Kingdom, where conditions are less extreme.
1524
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, says that thousands of lives may have been lost because of the use of chemicals as pesticides. Every life that is lost is, of course, regrettable. However, I should have thought that, over the years, literally millions of lives must have been saved by the use of DDT, a product that is frowned upon in this country. I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Radnor said. The principle upon which we work is that we must leave it to each sovereign government to decide for itself which pesticides it needs and which it can do without.
On the other hand, noble Lords will note that we are taking powers in Clause 15(5) to require such information from exporters of pesticides as will allow us to fulfil our international obligations. We do this because the international community does recognise the risks of unidentified and dangerous chemicals of all sorts entering into international trade, particularly to poorer countries without well developed control systems. We believe that agreement will soon be reached internationally on the arrangements to be made to inform governments in the receiving countries about such products, and we will then be able to make use of this provision to play our part in relation to pesticides.
There are a number of international agreements in force awaiting implementation or under discussion in this area. The United Kingdom has recently agreed in principle in the United Nations environment programme to an obligation to pass information to other countries when we ban or severely restrict hazardous substances, which would include pesticides. When, subsequently, exports of these substances take place we have undertaken to warn these other countries that exports have started. This will enable them to review the status of such imports in their own territories. This agreement has not yet been implemented. There is a variety of international agreements in force on the labelling of hazardous substances when they are in transport.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned FAO There is a draft FAO code of conduct on trade and the use of pesticides. But this has not yet been agreed by FAO member countries. The reason, I think I can say to my noble friend, why we say that we are expecting it is that we are expecting the code of conduct to be ratified and therefore we shall certainly be supporting it.
I should have thought that noble Lords would agree that this was a more appropriate arrangement than a proposal which I believe envisages powerful restraint on trade itself, using criteria which are quite inappropriate to third world conditions. I think my noble friend Lord Peel mentioned this when he said that the infrastructure in some of these countries was not quite as adequate as it is over here.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the noble Earl say whether there is anything to prevent the Government taking the power to make a regulation? One can envisage a lot of cases where it could be used. You can envisage corrupt and ruthless firms who would put on all the labelling they wished and still export very dangerous chemicals to corrupt third world countries. Surely it can do no harm to take the power to make a

1525
regulation to forbid the export. That is the point. The Government have given us no assurance on that.
Baroness Nicol: Before the noble Earl replies to that, if it is the Government's intention to take powers to deal with exports as soon as that becomes an international obligation, what machinery will they use? Will it be done by regulation, or by what means will they do it? If in fact it is eventually to be done by regulation, it would seem to me highly desirable, from their point of view, that this word "export" should be included now in the regulation so that when the time comes the machinery is to their hand. I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has just said. It seems to me that is a power the Government should welcome if their intentions are really as good as they claim they are.
The Earl of Swinton: The power is available in Clause 15(5).
Lord Melchett: When the noble Earl referred to that just now, he said, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that Clause 15(5) gives the Government power to require the provision of such information as may be necessary for various purposes. Is the noble Earl telling us that that means the Government have the power to prohibit the export of pesticides without the prior informed consent of the importing country? That is the question he was asked. With great respect to him, the whole of his reply to the debate was on a different subject, because nobody, in supporting the amendment, suggested that chemicals should be banned from export. We—a number of us, at least—simply said that there should be the informed consent of the importing country first; that is quite a different argument. Do the Government have power to do that, or do they not?
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, I think it is only right to invite your Lordships' attention to the somewhat vague phraseology of subsection (5). We find:
"Either of the Ministers may require the provision of such information by importers, exporters . . . or users of a pesticide as he considers to be necessary—

(a) for the purpose of determining—

(i) whether or not to approve it;".

But one has to puzzle the mind a bit to find to what "it" refers, or whether any, and, if so, what conditions should be imposed in relation to "it". The expression "in relation to" is really a very wide expression and might, I suppose, conceivably be referring to the export of "it", if "it" is the substance; or is it the information?
The Earl of Swinton: I think "it" is the information. I must make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the powers in Clause 15(5) require such information from exporters of pesticides as will allow us to fulfil our international obligations. This is that we will tell everybody what these pesticides are and what they contain. Surely it is up to them to decide whether or not they will deal with the problem in their own country.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, that would be quite wrong. The noble Earl missed the point, as I thought he had, of the speeches most noble Lords made in supporting the amendment. The international obligation which seems closest to agreement—although, as he said, it is still in draft—is the FAO one; and, as my noble friend said, the current draft includes a requirement for prior informed consent. It may be that the United Kingdom Government do not agree with that and want to see the draft changed, but there are a number of other expressions of international opinion, in particular a unanimous resolution of the European Parliament, which suggest that prior informed consent will not go away. Even if the FAO code is eventually agreed without it, it is clearly something which is likely to become an international obligation in the future. It may be that at that stage the Government would want to come back to Parliament with a Food and Environment (Amendment) Bill, but I should have thought that it would be sensible, if taking wide powers in the first place, to include the power to make regulations to prohibit exports to meet what seems at least likely to be future international obligations.
Lord Belstead: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, a question. I have been listening to the debate and I cannot find anything in subsection (5) which leads me to believe that prior informed consent by the importing country is prevented in some way by this Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: May I ask my question, which follows on that? For once, I am supporting the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am lost on this. I think the amendment in fact is defective in so far as my noble friend on the Front Bench said it might stop us exporting stuff that we consider dangerous but which might do a job over there. What I have not heard from the Government, and what I really do want to hear, is: are they or are they not in favour of prior informed consent? I have not heard a "yes" or "no" to that, and I should very much like to do so.
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, a question? It has already been said by his colleague on the Front Bench that what subsection (5) does is allow the Government to ask for information which will then allow them to approve the export. It would really be stretching the meaning of subsection (5), it seems to me, to say what I think the Government would have to say if they were going to implement an international obligation to impose prior informed consent. What they would have to do under subsection (5) is say that they require information from an exporter, which consists not only of the exporter telling the importing country what the pesticide consisted of but also that the importing country had agreed to it. That really does seem to me to be stretching subsection (5) too far. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is not worded very clearly, but I certainly do not think it is worded vaguely enough to extend that far.
Lord Belstead: With great respect to the noble Lord, I think he is shadow boxing. My noble friend has read

1527
out from a brief, which I am now looking at, the words:
"The United Kingdom has recently agreed in principle in the United Nations environment programme to an obligation to pass information to other countries when we ban or severely restrict hazardous substances, which would include pesticides. When, subsequently, exports of these substances take place we have undertaken to warn these other countries that exports have started".
That is a statement of intent, on the record, on the Floor of your Lordships' House. Subsection (5) paves the way to enable us to discharge that obligation, which is being negotiated at the moment in FAO.
Lord Melchett: Will the noble Lord take himself one step further? We all agree about that. I do not think there is any argument about what the noble Lord has just said. But if the FAO code as it now stands is agreed, if the European Parliament's resolution becomes an international obligation, if the RUCN resolution becomes an international obligation, the Government will have to go beyond what the noble Lord has just said and they will have to ban the export of products to meet what would be an international obligation on all countries unless the importing country had agreed to their import. That power is not in the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend answer this point absolutely clearly? There has been a lot of obfuscation. If we agree to the treaty imposing prior informed consent, does this Bill now give him the power to make regulations to say, "You, O chemical company, you, O merchant, will not sell abroad to this country without its prior informed consent"? If that is the case, that is all right. If it is not the case, I would hope that the Bill will be toughened up to make sure that that does happen.
Lord Craigton: May I try to clarify this in three sentences? Subsection (5) gives the Minister power to require information necessary,
"for the fulfilment by the government of the United Kingdom of any . . . international obligations".
That is absolutely clear, without any question whatever, and now we have the assurance that that includes prior informed consent.
9 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to add an additional voice to this excellent argument. But it seems to me that the provisions in Clause 15(5) refer back to those in Clause 15(1). It is Clause 15(1) that gives the Government power to take certain actions on the basis of the information which can be required under Clause 15(5). The one difference between them is that Clause 15(5) refers to, "importers, exporters, manufacturers" etc., but Clause 15(1) does not contain the word "export". The object of this amendment surely is to make those two subsections match by inserting the word "export".
The Earl of Cranbrook: A relevant point—without drawing attention to the obvious—revolves upon the resolution of Amendment No. 48, which has already been withdrawn. The whole of this part of the Bill is
1528
permissive and gives the Minister powers without obliging him to fulfil them at any given instance. That was made perfectly clear towards the end of the discussion devoted to Amendment No. 48.
The Earl of Swinton: I really cannot go further than to thank my noble friend for that comment. The situation is absolutely clear. If your Lordships look at Clause 15(5), you will see that it says:
"Either of the Ministers may require the provision of such information by importers, exporters, manufacturers, distributors or users of a pesticide as he considers to be necessary . . . for the fulfilment by the government of the United Kindom of any of its international obligations.".
Lord Melchett: I wonder whether the noble Earl would answer a straight question which has been put to him by several noble Lords on all sides of the Committee? Does the Bill as drafted give the Government power to ban the export of chemicals if prior informed consent from the importing country has not been obtained; yes or no?
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may answer the question for my noble friend, who has been on his feet many times. If I may say so, I do not think that we are drafting this Bill at the behest of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. If the noble Lord cares to look at what in fact is the Government's Bill, he will see that Clause 15(5) contains an absolutely clear statement that the provisions of the Bill require that we shall be able to fulfil our international obligations. The question of what those international obligations will be is for the international fora in which we are negotiating to decide. It is a matter for the international fora; it is a matter for Her Majesty's Government; it is not a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Why does the noble Lord object to the perfectly simple exercise of putting in the word "export", so that he can take the powers if he is required under international obligations so to do?
Lord Belstead: It is because we believe that we have taken all the powers that are necessary under Clause 15 to fulfil the international obligations which we are likely to have to fulfil.
Baroness Nicol: The Minister's remarks to my noble friend Lord Melchett are unworthy of him. The question was put to him quite directly by several noble Lords on his own side and he has not answered it. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked to be told in words of one syllable and so did the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I feel that the Minister has really still not answered the question; namely, whether, under the Bill as it stands, he can if necessary meet the particular international obligation which is likely to become necessary later this year, which is prior informed consent?
Lord Belstead: Forgive me for being rather boring, since we are all getting to our feet so many times. But I said advisedly that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was not making the policy of the Government, because as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would like to go to a position which the

1529
Government of this country have not taken up. We do not believe necessarily in blanket bans. What we do believe in is fulfilling our international obligations. In order to do that we are negotiating at the moment in the FAO on a perfectly simple premise, and that premise is to make sure that the importing countries abroad know what it is that they are importing. That at the moment is what we are negotiating on.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to rise and join in this argument yet again. But really all one wants is the answer "Yes" or "No" to a very simple question. If prior informed consent comes from an international treaty, do the Government have the power in the Bill to say, "You cannot export that product without prior informed consent and if you do, you go to 'chokey' for six months" or whatever penalty they care to give. That is the question that one wants answered.
Lord Mottistone: Is it entirely reasonable to ask the question?
The Earl of Onslow: That is what Parliament is for.
Lord Mottistone: You can ask a question in the Chamber, but is it reasonable to insist upon the answer? Is it a reasonable question? I should have thought that if the government overseas have the information that they need, why is it so frightfully important for powers to be given at the beginning of Clause 15 to restrict export where the overseas country wants to make its own decision? I do not see why the question should be asked.
Lord Maekie of Benshie: The important words are "prior informed" but the most important word is "consent".
The Earl of Cranbrook: I still think that my noble friend on the Front Bench need not be the slightest bit apprehensive about allowing the little word "export" into this position in the clause, because the power will be discretionary and will give him a weapon which he may or may not wish to use in the future, but it will still give him a power which he could use if eventualities came to make it necessary. I do not believe that he need make an issue of this particular point or that he need have the slightest apprehension that anyone will accuse him of losing face or anything like that if he admits this small word into this clause at this place.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I do not think that there is any question of losing face. My noble friend and I on the Front Bench are surprised that, when the Government set out explicitly that we intend to fulfil our international obligations, we should then be told that we are not going far enough. I should have thought that that was a reasonable, straightforward and honest statement of policy, and that is what we intend to stand by.
Lord Renton: With respect to my noble friend there may be circumstances not covered by any international obligation, a rare case, perhaps, in which the Government might feel that they were wrong to export. It would be an isolated case, involving a power
1530
to be used only with discretion. Surely, for my noble friend not to take that power reveals what I regard to him as an uncharacteristic narrow-mindedness. He is generally such a broad-minded and forthcoming man. Really, I should have thought that he could have curtailed this discussion a long time ago by simply saying, "Yes", on that simple point.
Lord Belstead: I and my noble friend who is dealing with the amendment listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Renton said. May we have a look at this amendment and see what we think of it? I have a feeling that some of the arguments which have been put, not by my noble friend but from the other side of the Committee, go a good deal further and may be arguments with which we do not agree. At the moment I feel that what it is right that we should do is to stick by subsection (5)(b), but if we could be allowed to have a look and to see what we think about Amendment No. 50 on reading Hansard, then that I think is what we should like to do.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord made an uncharacteristic personal attack on the question that I asked him. As it has now been repeated again twice from behind him, I hope that he might reconsider that. There is no difference on either side of the Committee. We may have different views about the desirability of prior informed consent, but that is not the purpose of this amendment and it has not been the content of any of the questions that the noble Lord has been asked—and which, with respect, he still has not answered. All the people who have asked him questions have asked him whether the Bill gives the Government power to meet a hypothetical international obligation to impose prior informed consent. Does it provide that power or not? The noble Lord has not yet said "Yes" or "No" to that question. In fact, he has quite deliberately avoided saying "Yes" or "No" to that question which has been asked him from behind him more frequently than it has been asked from this side of the Committee. That is all that has been asked of him—simply to say "Yes" or "No" to that.
Lord Northbourne: From a perusal of the Bill it is quite evident that it does not give the Government power to forbid exports in the circumstances. I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, because I think an answer is required to that question, either now or later.
The Earl of Onslow: May I speak one final time and say to my noble friend Lord Belstead that, under pressure, he said very gallantly that he is going to go away and look at it. I think that this particular rabbit has been worried to death several times. We may not have had a totally satisfactory answer, but we now have from the Minister the promise that he will go away and look at it hard. But we would put him on notice that we shall worry him to death a bit more if he does not come back with something more satisfactory at Report.
Baroness Nicol: In view of the Minister's offering to think about it, at this stage I shall withdraw the amendment. But I must say that it is something about

1531
which I personally and a number of Members of the Committee feel very deeply and so it is likely to come back at another stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 13, line 8, after ("supply") insert (", disposal").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 51, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 56A, which is related, and which appears on the supplementary list.
Amendment No. 56A: Page 13, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) provide for the disposal of any pesticide which has not received approval;").
Amendment No. 51 also is concerned with a single word, but I hope that it will not give rise to as lengthy and controversial a debate as that which has just preceded it. It is concerned specifically with the question of disposal and is in the nature of a probing amendment. It sets out to explore whether Ministers will include in the regulations and conditions relating to the disposal of unwanted pesticides pesticide residues or containers carrying pesticide residues. I have looked at the statement of intention and it would appear that the question of disposals is covered in the statement of intention so far as manufacturers are concerned. It is less clear, I think, from a fairly rapid perusal of it, whether the position of suppliers and users is covered regarding unwanted pesticides. As this question of disposal is of considerable concern to a number of organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it would be useful if the Minister could give us some thinking on it.
So far as Amendment No. 56A is concerned, this, too, takes up the question of disposal, with specific reference to any pesticide which has not received approval. We should like to know from the Government whether it is proposed to make provisions for disposal in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I think that perhaps the noble Lord has in mind making a regulation against emptying out the contents of a spray container that is only a quarter full into a bottle that possibly does not get labelled. I can easily recall about 12 years ago when there were considerable discussions on this very subject with regard to Paraguat. There were then great calls for making it a criminal offence to do that very thing because there had been tragedies through children having picked up the bottles.
I can remember giving as an example the horrifying story, which I remember to this day, of the two brothers who lived in what I think is called the stockbroker belt of Surrey. One had been playing golf on the Saturday afternoon and the other had been mowing his lawn. The golfer came in to see his brother and the brother said, "How marvellous to see you. Thank goodness you have arrived. Let us have a whisky and soda." The golfer said, "Nothing would be more pleasant". So to his sideboard the lawn mower went and he picked up a bottle which had "Johnnie Walker" on it. He poured out a glass for his brother, who took a mouthful and dropped on to the floor. The
1532
pourer said, "my God! I have given him the remains of the prussic acid that I had used for the wasps."
I remember saying that if people are prepared to put prussic acid into a bottle and not only leave it in the garage but put it on the sideboard in the dining-room, what chance is there of legislating against people who are so totally crazy? If it is the intention here that it should be an offence to put any of these pesticides into a bottle and not put a label on it, it is going to be so difficult to enforce that really we are wasting our time. My own habit invariably if we have a full container left—it is bought on sale-and-return terms, needless to say, in Scotland—is that it goes back. If it is half empty it is kept in the same tin with the label on, in—which I gather is important—frost-proof premises, and we use it again next year.
If I have totally misinterpreted the intention of the noble Lord's probing amendment, then I apologise. All I can say is that perhaps noble Lords may have been thrilled by the rather macabre story I have told.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I am not certain whether it is my noble friend who has misinterpreted the noble Lord's amendment. I certainly do not see it as to do with bits and pieces in bottles, but it may well be. However it arises, I appreciate the desire to ensure that surplus or unwanted pesticides are disposed of safely. This point was considered when the Bill was drafted. In fact, the powers to set conditions on the supply and use of pesticides afforded by Clause 15(1)(c) and (e) empower Ministers to specify how surplus or unwanted pesticides, and indeed pesticide containers, may be disposed of. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree that this amendment is unnecessary.
It could also be covered under paragraph 11 of the statement of intentions which we circulated, and perhaps we should have put it in those and spelt it out more clearly. I can give the noble Lord a glimmer of hope, or I hope more than a glimmer. He has a good point under his Amendment 56A, and when it comes to that I have some rather more cheerful news for him.
Lord Gallacher: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 13, line 8, at end insert ("or methods of application or delivery devices").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to take Amendments 52, 53, 55 and 70 together.
Amendment No. 53: Page 13, line 9, after ("pesticides") insert ("or methods of application or delivery devices").
Amendment No. 55: Page 13, line 12, after ("pesticides") insert ("or methods of application or delivery devices").
Amendment No. 70: Page 14, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In framing regulations under Part III of this Act the Minister shall have regard to the need to limit the application of pesticides to target crops or animals and to avoid contact with other crops, wild plants and animals and shall frame the regulations to control methods of application and delivery devices accordingly.").
The purpose of the first three of these amendments is to give the Minister powers to issue regulations

1533
which control methods of application and also delivery devices used for applicating pesticides. The purpose of Amendment 70 is to some extent to outline the parameters for deciding on what those regulations should say. It was not my intention to suggest that draconian regulations should be introduced from the outset, because this would only tend to alienate the farming community and almost certainly the best results would be achieved if their co-operation and enthusiasm can be engaged.
What I suggest is needed initially is much more information to be made available to the farming community, and much more help, advice, extension work, and possibly training in the use of application devices for pesticides. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who is accustomed to using pesticides within the definition of the Act that the method of application plays an important part in deciding both the pesticide's effectiveness and also its influence on the environment. Unfortunately, far too little is known and there has been far too little research on the effect of pesticides on the environment.
I think it might be helpful if I briefly give a couple of examples of the kind of thing that I am talking about. One fairly rare piece of research that has been done by the British Crop Protection Council—a study on pesticide application systems—suggests that only 1 to 2 per cent. of spray actually contacts the pest. While 20 to 35 per cent. of the droplets coming from a conventional hydraulic nozzle may be in droplet sizes of less than 100 microns diameter, they will tend not to fall to earth but to drift, the liquid or solvent to evaporate, and the active ingredient to go who knows where. It is interesting that there appears to be no indication as to any research on what happens to the active ingredient in the pesticide and how much damage it may or may not do to the environment.
I should like to take another example of the way in which methods of application can be important. Many entomologists are now recommending systems which involve trapping insects, putting out traps in crops, scouting those crops and using the insecticide sprayer only when the pest reaches epidemic proportions. This means that much less pesticide has to be used, with less danger to the environment and an economy to the farmer's pocket.
Who is interested in disseminating information and carrying out research on a project of that kind? Certainly not the chemical companies, because they will sell less products. I believe that one way in which a more satisfactory environmental relationship between farmers and those with concern for the environment can be achieved is by more research being put into projects of this kind.
Lord Craigton: ICI are carrying out research now on methods of distributing insecticide.
Lord Northbourne: That involves the electrodyne distributor; I am delighted to hear it.
That is really all I have to say, except that the power to produce regulations would enable the Minister, when the best possible results have been achieved in terms of co-operation, to introduce regulations to control any "cowboys" who might still be flouting the system. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I think there is no doubt about it that the application of spray is almost as important as the spray itself in many cases. This is a very important amendment indeed and we thoroughly support it. But there are complications. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned that if one has close examination of one's crop and finds that there are insufficient pests—beetles, I think he mentioned—it would be a good thing not to spray and would save money. I am in that position today, but then I read a report which tells me that brassica growers in our area in the Lea Valley are worried about any of those beetles and they say it is the duty of the farmer to spray, whether or not there are sufficient beetles to damage his crop. This question of application is always complicated, but certainly it should go into the Bill. We shall no doubt be told that something covers it elsewhere, but we support those amendments raised by the noble Lord.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support the idea behind this amendment, but we must enter the caveat that we do not want research into innovation or more efficient use to be hindered in any way. I notice that in its paper the NFU supports the declared intention of the Government to ensure safe and efficient use of pesticides. These chemicals are essential to agriculture, and the paper goes on (as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, quoted in her Second Reading speech) to concur with the objective recommended by,
"the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution of reducing pesticide usage to a minimum consistent with efficient food production".
I suggest that without proper control of the kind of machinery that is used, there is then a hole in that control mechanism.
The British Agrochemicals Association, also in a letter to me, said:
"We support the extension of controls in the use of agrochemicals, including the means of application."
The CLA also imply it. So this particular series of amendments has a very wide spectrum of support. We are not saying in detail exactly what sort of droplet size is needed, or how big a wheel, and whether it has to be drawn by a horse or a diesel tractor. What we are saying is that we would like the Government to take powers possibly to bring in controls and to look at the matter very carefully. That is all we are wanting them to so.
Lord Craigton: This point is one that has worried me more than any single thing about this Bill. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne: the method of delivery is an important part in the whole operation of applying the spray. I agree with him that there is not enough research and I also agree with the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There is not one mention of delivery devices in this Bill. I was given to understand that this would be "all right on the night" and that it would be all right when the regulations were produced. But I gave up a glass of wine and had just one course for dinner in order to read the statement of intention. I hoped that that would further this particular point. The conditions of approval make no reference whatever to the approval of delivery devices. Then, on

1535
the manufacturers, they say—and this is absolutely terrible—
"These label conditions could include storage ... for all appropriate application methods which are in common use."
The Government, unless we do something at this Committee stage, are going to leave it to the label to indicate the appropriate application methods which are in common use. That is not good enough. If I had known this, I would have put my name to these amendments: as it is, I support them absolutely.
Lord Melchett: I put my name to this amendment because, as I think has already been said by more than one noble Lord, it is very often the case that the method of application is a matter of more significance from the farmer's point of view and the environmental point of view than the chemical formulation of the product itself.
As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says, there is very wide support from the British Agrochemicals Association, the National Farmers' Union, and certainly from environmental organisations, that controls should be introduced as to the methods of use. If the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, had given up more of his dinner-time and got through all the Notes on Clauses—and that would have taken him several hours—I think he would have found a very brief reference in the note on this clause to the fact that there is power in the Bill to make regulations covering methods of application. I assume that that is correct, even though it has not apparently been included in the latest, briefer note.
I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for more detail on what the Government's intention is. I would assume that the regulations will include details of the appropriate methods of application. I should also like to ask the noble Lord, when he replies, to say whether, for example, on hydraulic sprayers, the regulations will specify the nozzle angle, the nozzle capacity, pressure and flow rates, all of which would improve the performance of conventional hydraulic sprayers and, as the noble Lord may well be aware, would follow a scheme that has already been devised by the British Crop Protection Council. Therefore it would not involve a lot of new work, but would be putting into the Government's regulations something which is already available. There would obviously need to be a range of different droplet sizes for different purposes: for example, a larger size for herbicides.
It also seems to me that all of us on all sides are interested, from different points of view, in encouraging the use of CDA spraying where appropriate. The last thing any of us would want to do would be to inhibit that. I am sure that is agreed on all sides of this Committee. It seems to me that, if the regulations also included some detailed specifications for CDA applications, that would actually encourage farmers to use that technique and the pesticide manufacturers to produce and label chemicals in appropriate ways for use in the authorised CDA techniques. I should like to have some very specific answers about the Government's intentions in regard to the regulations for regulating and specifying what methods of application shall or shall not be used.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: As I read the amendment, it will in fact make delivery devices subject to approval and regulation. In principle, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and other noble Lords who have spoken, but I am not sure that this amendment will do what we want it to do. I think it will be very difficult for manufacturers fully to assess their machines until the chemical manufacturers give precise details as to how the chemical should be used. The trouble comes here because a chemical used in a hydraulic machine will need regulations completely different from one used in a CDA machine or electro-static machine, or indeed something we have not yet heard of. That is what worries me. Dare I suggest that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my Amendment No. 75, might better deal with this problem. No doubt we shall have another go at it then.
I fear that the actual words of this amendment might restrict the invention of new machines, although I would fully accept the fact that most sprayers today (which are hydraulic) are troublesome, tiresome and have given me near coronaries more often than any other machine on the farm. They are, to put it mildly, ghastly, even though we spend vast sums of money on them. We need much more information and much more research.
I am again doubtful about this amendment. I wonder who will decide what is a good machine. I ask the Government how they will encourage progress on sprayers and new techniques. I should like to hear their views on this. I was interested to see the later amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, Amendment No. 120, which suggests some form of advisory body—dare I say quango, although I think that is a bad word. The noble Lord might have a point here because we are on rather difficult ground. My speech is obviously muddly because the problem is quite difficult and confused.
Earl Peel: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on this matter because it seems to me that it is impossible to legislate when we simply do not have the complete evidence in front of us. To my knowledge, most of the experimental work that has been done in this field to date has been done by the manufacturing companies themselves. I should like to ask the Government what they intend to do in the way of research. It seems to me that ADAS, for example, ought to be looking into the most effective way of pesticide application. But how does one judge it—by drift, droplet size, or quantity evaporation? There are so many factors about which we really do not know enough. At this stage, much though I have great sympathy for what the noble Lord is saying, I do not see how this can possibly be enacted.
Lord Belstead: The message I have received from listening to this short debate is that everybody agrees that it is necessary to ensure that pesticides are applied only through machinery which is appropriate and fit for the purpose, but we do not all agree on exactly how that ought to be done.
Perhaps I may just go back to first principles for a moment. There are difficulties in spelling out every

1537
single detail in regulations as to how methods of application should be applied. My noble friend Lord Craigton chided the Government with not having dealt with this at all in our Statement of Intention. My noble friend is habitually fair. I hope he will allow me to draw his attention, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, kindly did, to subparagraph (4) of paragraph 11 where there is a specific statement that systems of application shall be controlled under the regulations.
The requirement (if I may move on to an amendment we have not yet reached) which my noble friend Lord Craigton has in one of his amendments about approving individual machines is a very good example of where we can get into difficulties as regards regulations. 1 hope my noble friend will forgive me for referring to one of his later amendments. I absolutely understand why my noble friend Lord Craigton wants to see that individual machines are inspected as far as possible, but when one considers that in deciding safety one must take into account the nature of the pesticides, the weather conditions, the way the machine is used, the type of nozzles employed, the pressure at which it is run, the general maintenance standard, the dose rate and the dilution rate, then we get into difficulties if, in regulations, we start saying that the way to put things right is simply to inspect the machines.
Having said that, your Lordships may well ask: what do the Government want done? The answer is quite clear. We believe that it is right to ensure that pesticides are only applied through machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose. There are powers which are needed to do this. The general power in Clause 15(l)(c)—which is the catch-all power in Clause 15—enables this to be done. We believe that the ways of controlling the correct operation of machines should be through imposing those statutory responsibilities on the user and by backing them up with education, advice and, in the final instance, enforcement.
The major enforcement responsibility in Part III is to be borne in this respect by the Health and Safety Executive, and officers of the HSE enforcing this part of the Bill would be equipped, under Clause 17 (4) and (5), with powers to impose improvement and prohibition notices on anyone who used pesticides in such a way as to create a hazard. Thus, anyone using a machine incorrectly, or using an unsuitable machine, could find that the penalty is (and I quote from Clause 17) a notice directing,
"that any reasonable remedial or preventive measures shall be taken".
In other words, in plain English, such a person would be told that he could not continue to use the machine if it remained in the condition it was in, or that he would need to be instructed in the correct use of the machine.
I hope I have said enough to show that not only do we agree with your Lordships that it is necessary to look very carefully into the way in which pesticides are applied but that there are very real powers in the Bill to ensure that that will be so.
Lord Melchett: As I believe I said when I first spoke, I certainly accept that there are special powers in the
1538
Bill, and the noble Lord has again confirmed that. What worries me is the way in which the Government intend to use those powers. As I understood the noble Lord—and I accept that I am simplifying the explanation—the Government intend to act by putting a general duty on farmers, on the users, to use machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose—I believe those were the noble Lord's words—and they will be in trouble if they do not. Presumably that would apply to a farmer who purchased from a reputable machinery manufacturer a brand new sprayer designed, so the farmer was told, for use with certain chemicals but which the Health and Safety Executive found was not. The farmer would, as it were, end up in the dock, and not the manufacturer. I am not sure that that is the best way of going about the matter, either speaking as a farmer or from the general point of view of the legislation being effective.
Surely the point at which the regulations should bite is on the manufacturers of the machinery. It should be there that regulations are laid down on what sort of machinery should be produced. The noble Lord said that there were a whole host of factors, and he mentioned several outside the machine itself, such as the concentration of the chemical used. Surely all those will be covered by the regulations, anyway. We are, therefore, still left with the need to do something about the machinery, and whether one puts the onus on the farmer or on the manufacturer to make sure the machinery is appropriate and safe.
I ask the noble Lord to address his mind to the British Crop Protection Council's scheme, which goes into that sort of detail and to which I understand nobody has raised any great objection; and, indeed, for which I think there might be a good deal of support. In other words, I think it is possible, certainly for hydraulic sprayers, to produce the sort of detailed guidelines for manufacturers which would then remove rather a heavy onus from the shoulders of the farming community.
The Earl of Onslow: May I say one thing on this? The Notes on Clauses talk about the methods of application. My noble friend has given an undertaking that there is going to be maximum consultation, and that the regulations are certainly going to start churning out of the Government printing press some time next year. Now, under those circumstances, I would have thought really that he has covered the point about machinery, and these are detailed minutiae which should come with the discussions on the draft regulations themselves.
Lord Craigton: I am still worried. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, but what seems to me so important is that the Government must themselves worry about the type of spray delivered by the different types of machine. They must be concerned about how these machines operate and whether they operate correctly with one or other pesticide. It is no good leaving that to the farmer—he is no technician. It is no good leaving that to the manufacturer—he is there to sell machines. If the Government do not do it, we shall not get the correct droplet size that is wanted for a particular spray.
Lord Belstead: May I just answer that question which has come from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on what the Government will be doing to regulate application machinery. We shall look at each chemical either as a new product or on review, and consider the likely machinery by which it will be applied, and in this we will not be bound only by the requests of the manufacturers. Thus, each chemical will be approved as we indicate in paragraph 9 of the statement of intent in relation to appropriate application methods, and of course other application methods for those particular chemicals will be outlawed.
I think it is difficult for me to go further than that, either in reply to the noble Lord opposite, or in reply to my noble friend. I am not just trying to get out of a difficulty here, but I think we are now getting to a stage in the Bill with application methods where it really would be wise for me to look at what has been said. I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has in fact raised some quite important points on this, and perhaps your Lordships might like to look to see what we have said and also to look a little more at the statement of intent.
I go back, if I may, to what I said originally—and there is, I think, no difference between the Government and any of your Lordships wherever you sit in the House—about ensuring that pesticides should be applied only through machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose. I think if we could continue with the Bill on that basis—because there are other amendments as well—then at least there will be no misunderstanding about what it is we are trying to achieve. The difficulty lies in how much you can actually write into the regulations.
Lord Renton: On this occasion I really do agree with my noble friend. There is only one point I should like to make, however, arising out of what he has said. It is that not all of us have had the advantage of receiving the statement of intent, and the courts will never have it before them if by any chance they have to interpret the Bill after if becomes an Act.
Lord Craigton: Did I understand the Minister to say that he would look not only at his obligation to get the right pesticide, but also his obligation to see that it is the right delivery device? That is not a point I have made. It is a point made in the seventh report of the Royal Commission. It made this very point in four pages, and the Minister, to my mind, is still ignoring the point that it is the Government's job to take this on board, and not to leave it to the manufacturer or the farmer.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may reply, so that there is no misunderstanding on this point; we shall look at each chemical. It is our intention that the Government look under the statutory scheme at each chemical, either as a new product, or on review, and consider the likely machinery by which the product will be applied.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to prolong this. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have received a visit from the Government Chief Whip.
Lord Renton: Not at all.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: But this is an important amendment, with respect, and I should like to be clear about what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is going to look at. There is a clear difference on the merits of an argument. I accept that there are merits on both sides. One, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, is to look at the chemicals and then make sure that farmers are under a duty to use machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose. The other side, which I think is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and I are arguing, is that the Government rather than farmers should decide what machinery is safe and appropriate for the purpose. That is a serious difference. I am not saying that one side or the other is right, but I should hope that we could pursue that without being rushed too much.
The noble Lord has very kindly said that he will look at this. I should like to ask him whether he will look at the British Crop Protection Council scheme which I mentioned and let me have his views on that if possible before Report stage. That seems to me to be a practical example of an existing scheme which the Government regulations might be able to build on.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, really should not insinuate that my noble friend Lord Onslow and I have been in any way influenced by the Chief Whip. The truth is that he did not willingly visit us. I beckoned to him to try to find out from him how late he wanted us to sit tonight. I received a perfectly satisfactory answer, but I was not in the least bit influenced in my attitude by what he had to say. In fact, he said practically nothing.
Lord Melchett: I apologise for my unwarranted assumption about the influence of the Government Chief Whip.
Lord Belstead: Just before the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, ends this debate, let me say that I will indeed look at the British Crop Protection Council scheme. What I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was asking me to do was to write to him, and that I will do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to be very careful not to be pressed by noble Lords into doing something that prevents innovation in machinery. This is not stationary. We want masses of innovation. We want new methods of delivering chemicals in the way that is required. A great deal has to be done about this. Decisions or regulations should not be made to prevent people from doing it. They should not be made to feel fearful of producing machinery and developing it in case it cannot be used. That would be the most disastrous thing of all and totally counterproductive. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind.
Lord Northbourne: We have had a most useful discussion. I personally am happy with the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has given. I think that I marginally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I think that a great deal of responsibility will

1541
always rest on the farmers' shoulders. I was therefore particularly glad of the assurance that support will be given to the farmer in fulfilling the obligations that will be laid upon him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert ("provided that such exclusions shall not include any pesticide used as an earthworm killer or a rodenticide or for the purposes of dipping sheep").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment—and I shall take it as quickly as I can—to see what the Government's intentions are about particular forms of pesticide which are not in the mainstream of agricultural use. I should like to take the three points separately. The first is earthworm killers. I have in mind particularly the chemical chlordane, which is widely used on sports grounds and in public parks to kill earthworms. It is extremely harmful to birds and other animals because it depletes their food resource. It seems to me to be a quite unnecessary use for the chemical. Indeed, any farmer would want to encourage earthworms rather than do the opposite. I should like to have from the Government, if I could, some information about whether that sort of chemical and that sort of use will be covered by the regulations to be made under the Bill.
The second point in my amendment concerns pesticides for use against rodents and in particular rat killers. I have in mind here in particular the new generation of rat-killing poisons following Warfarin, the anti-coagulant rodenticide. There is in particular a chemical, Brodifacoum, which is one of the new generation of rodenticides. That chemical has been implicated in owl deaths—causing the death of owls in at least the United States and Malaysia, to my knowledge. Again, I should like to be clear whether that chemical and that sort of use of it will be covered by the regulations.
There is a point on advertising that chemical which I should like to come to when we reach amendments about advertisements, but the final point on this amendment is the question of chemicals for use in sheep dips. The Notes on Clauses, which I have studied with great care, suggest that sheep dips will not be covered by regulations under the Bill because they are controlled under the Medicines Act 1968. That seems to me to give rise to problems with respect to the persistent organochlorines and in particular dieldrin. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said on Second Reading, dieldrin is now prohibited so far as agricultural uses are concerned, it is available for use as a sheep dip. It was recently seen by some RSPB staff on a conservation demonstration farm, where there was a new can of dieldrin for use in a sheep dip. It seems to me to be anomalous that a chemical which is banned for agricultural use under the regulations which will be made under this Bill in due course should be available on farms.
It is an unfortunate fact that although dieldrin is an extremely dangerous and persistent chemical it is quite an effective one for instance for the control of leather-
1542
jackets in some crops such as potatoes, sugar beet and carrots. It has certainly been used for those purposes. There is some evidence to suggest that supplies of the product which are available for sheep dips have been misused for crop protection purposes, which I think all responsible farmers would deplore.
It seems to me that all uses of dieldrin should be prohibited, and that therefore the regulations made under this Bill should cover the use of a persistent organochlorine like dieldrin, whether it is for use in a sheep dip or for any other purpose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: This time I show a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I can confirm to him that earthworm killers and rodenticides will be controlled under the regulations, as indeed will aphicides, nematicides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, algicides and acaricides, etc. I am relieved that the noble Lord has not asked me to list all those as well.
The noble Lord is also absolutely right in that the supply of sheep dips will not be controlled under these regulations, since, as he has said, it is already controlled under the Medicines Act. However, we are considering to what extent the use—and indeed that would also stand for the misuse—of such veterinary medicines might be controlled under this legislation. I do not know where he saw this dieldrin being used as a sheep dip but it is at the present time illegal so to do.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend tell me what an acaricide is?
The Earl of Swinton: Not at this late hour of the night.
Lord Melchett: I am much obliged. I am very grateful for that reply and I should like to consider it. Can the noble Earl just confirm that, in that case, dieldrin is now no longer available for any agricultural use, either for crop protection purposes or for any veterinary or animal purpose at all? It would be very helpful if he could confirm that. I think that was what he said. I just want to be clear.
The Earl of Swinton: I think the answer is that that is absolutely the case. However I should have to confirm this and let the noble Lord know if I am wrong. Certainly I can say that it is not permitted as a sheep dip.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 13, line 15, at end insert—

("( ) provide that the Ministers may jointly refuse permission for release of a pesticide from an airborne container over an area and for a period specified by them;").

The noble Lord said: I am given to understand that in this Bill aerial spraying is controlled. As usual, I am not able to find it there but I must accept the assurances I am given. But there are certainly no

1543
powers in this Bill to control whether in an area there should be any aerial spraying at all, and, if so, by what type of aircraft. There is, as the noble Lord knows better than I, much to be said for confirming that the spraying is done by helicopter only.
My amendment covers what I hope are all the points, including pilotless craft that might be used. The power for which my amendment asks is not in Part III of this Bill so far as I can see. Neither are the powers in Part I at which I looked, which has the emergency order powers that operate after a dangerous substance has been released, not, as is wanted here, powers to prevent the release of that substance. I believe, and the country, I think, will insist, that there must be powers to control aerial spraying. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has a later amendment, Amendment No. 100, with the same purpose. I agree entirely with it. As his proposal is a new clause, the noble Lord has had to include administrative detail, which, in the case of my amendment, appearing in Clause 15, would, I think, be included in regulations and not in the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says and whether he is able to agree, if not to my amendment then to the principle of the control by MAFF of exactly where spraying is to take place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support the principle behind the amendment. Aerial spraying is one of those things that annoy the public more than anything else. There is also the problem of drift, which is infinitely more difficult to control certainly when flying fixed-wing aircraft. I am not saying that it should be banned, I am just saying that there should be powers to say where it should not happen. I do not think anyone would reasonably want spraying to be banned over large areas of forest or large areas of bracken on the hillsides of Scotland if that is necessary. However, as no one on the Front Bench is listening, I shall sit down.
Lord John-Mackie: These three amendments grouped together are very important indeed, and will warrant a very long debate. I understand that there has been agreement between the usual channels that we should try to rise at ten o'clock. I should like to know what the Committee feels on the subject before opening up a very wide debate.
Lord Denham: I think that the agreement between the usual channels is that we should finish as near ten o'clock as possible. What we rather hoped, I believe, was that we would get through this amendment before we rose. I would not ask your Lordships to embark on a new amendment after this one.
Lord Belstead: I wonder whether it would help if I said a word. My noble friend Lord Craigton said that he could not find the powers in the Bill to regulate aerial spraying. I realise the difficulties so far as looking at this Bill is concerned. If one looks at Clause 15(1)(b) and (c), there is definitely enough power there to impose conditions on aerial spraying. My noble friend will say that that is all very well, but are you going to do it? What do the Government intend to do?
1544
I should like to make clear that the Government are already adopting a two-part policy. First, the existing controls operated by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Air Navigation order are being strengthened at the present time. The CAA is just completing a thorough review of the requirements it imposes on operators. Strengthened and more precise requirements are going shortly to be in force. For example, the minimum distance that must be maintained from houses is to be increased to 200 feet. The requirement that aircraft must not fly below 200 feet over gardens will be imposed, and operators will be required to consult water authorities before spraying anywhere near water. Those are just examples.
Other changes will facilitate the task of enforcement. This is important. Many of the problems arise from the current requirements not being followed. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport has made clear recently that the Department of Transport regards breaches of the requirements as a most serious matter. At the end of the summer, on 31st July, he consulted the chairman of the CAA and was assured that vigorous enforcement action would be taken. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport also gave a clear warning to the aerial spraying operators. The situation is to be monitored closely over the next three years. If the action taken does not prove to be adequate, we will not hesitate to take more stringent measures.
10 p.m.
The controls which I have just referred to are upon the method of operating the aircraft themselves. But the second part of the Government's policy turns upon the powers now in Clause 15 of this Bill. The controls which we would envisage imposing here will be designed to protect the environment. I would direct the attention of your Lordships to the powers over users of pesticides, which I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships in the statement of intent which I sent round to your Lordships. Paragraph 11 of that statement shows that we can control the products used, the application rates and the application system itself, if we feel the environment and safety case has been made. I cannot emphasise too strongly that these are wide powers and that they apply to aerial spraying as they apply to any other system of application. As we review our existing approvals we will have an opportunity to re-assess the evidence of the risk that aerial spraying involves and to change the rules accordingly, if it is necessary. The Committee need have no doubt that the powers will be used if necessary.
The amendment that we are discussing is, if I may say so, a bit detailed. Its effect would be to restrict the Government's measures to those in the amendment alone, before the full consultation has taken place on the regulations to be made under the Bill. It would tend to take away that broad scope for responding to circumstances which the Bill is genuinely designed to provide, and perhaps in the end quite different measures would be needed from those which are actually in the amendment.
I apologise for speaking at length at this late hour, but I hope I have made clear, on this very important

1545
amendment, the strength of the Government's intention to control aerial spraying fully and adequately. The power to do that in the Bill is there, in Clause 15(1)(b) and (c). I therefore ask your Lordships not to press this amendment and perhaps to look with some care at what I have tried to outline as being the Government's policy and actions at the present time.
Lord Melchett: May I ask for some information? Are we going to take Amendments Nos. 68 and 100 of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when we come back to this next week? They are on the same subject. If we are, I should have thought it might be sensible to leave matters as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has left them, as we are going to have another debate in a couple of days' time, rather than have a long debate tonight. I just wonder if that is what the Committee envisages.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: May I add my voice to this? That was my intention—that it should be left for us to study the very helpful statement made by the Minister, and perhaps we can come back to the detail. I know that many noble Lords have very strong views on this question.
Lord Craigton: May I ask the Minister one question? He referred to controlled spraying. Will he be able to have the powers to do what my amendment asks? If so, then I am satisfied with his assurance. Can they jointly refuse permission for the release of the pesticide over an area and for a period specified by them? Will they have powers to say that there is going to be no aerial spraying at all in a certain area or for a certain period, or both?
Lord Belstead: The answer to my noble friend is, yes.
Lord Craigton: Right; that is super. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I understand that the next amendment, No. 56A, is not going to take very long, but I think that, even so, it would be the feeling of your Lordships that we adjourn the Committee stage here and come back fresher next time round.
I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.

  CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
  CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST: BOILERHOUSE
  ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST: BOILERHOUSE
  CANADIAN ARCTIC WATERS: POLLUTION CONTROL ZONE
  CANADIAN ARCTIC WATERS: POLLUTION CONTROL ZONE
  VIETNAM: EFFECTS OF HERBICIDE and DEFOLIANT USE 1961–71
  VIETNAM: EFFECTS OF HERBICIDE and DEFOLIANT USE 1961–71
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  COUNCIL OF FISHERY MINISTERS MEETING, DECEMBER 1984
  COUNCIL OF FISHERY MINISTERS MEETING, DECEMBER 1984