Sitting of 15 February 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (KALLIN PIER, HARBOUR JURISDICTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and education met Dr. Munn, in his capacity as chairman of the Manpower Services Commission for Scotland, on 6 February, and I hope to do so shortly.
    Mr. Ross: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman, will he raise with him the question of the failure of the Manpower Services Commission and the area boards to follow up youth training schemes where approval has been granted subject to trade union approval being given? Where there is clear evidence that no such approval has been given, will the MSC take steps to ensure that schemes are approved by trade unions where there is trade union involvement?
    Mr. Younger: I know that the MSC always does everything that it can to get approval from the trade unions for these schemes. When they are approved, it does all that it can to encourage them to go ahead.
    Mr. Hirst: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the MSC in Scotland, will he take the opportunity of congratulating it on the effective way in which it has promoted the community programme, by which about 60,500 people in Scotland are doing excellent work within the community? Will he also take the opportunity of telling the MSC in Scotland that Conservative Members greatly admire the work that has been done in promoting the enterprise allowance scheme? Will he explain that this is the method by which the unemployed in Scotland are being given the opportunity to become self-employed business men?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the community programme is a good method of helping the long-term unemployed, who have poor
    246
    prospects otherwise of securing employment. The allowance scheme is proving popular and has been followed up by many people.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: In future conversations with the MSC, will the Secretary of State tell it how he proposes to reverse the situation in which there are now more people in Scotland without a regular job for the first time in its history than there are peole employed in manufacturing industry? Will he explain how he proposes to end the situation in which 1,099 factories or establishments have been lost in Scotland since 1979? Will he tell them that he will resign if Scotland loses any regional funds under the present regional review?
    Mr. Younger: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that one has to set against the factories that have been closed over the past few years the number of factories that have been opened. I am sure that he was as pleased as I was to read the announcement yesterday by Hewlett-Packard of an extension that will provide 700 new jobs over the next three years. Service industries have been doing very well through the difficult times of the past few years and expanding most of the time. That must be set against unemployment in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Malone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Grampian region especially the enterprise allowance scheme has been a great success and has resulted in about 100 new businesses being started? Will he take whatever steps he can to ensure that further funds are devoted to this excellent and successful scheme?
    Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The great benefit of starting up many small concerns is that the areas concerned are often no longer dependent on one large industry. The one industry is replaced by many small enterprises which are basic to the economy.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the change in policy and financial arrangements on the training side, there is now a threat to close some skillcentres, including the one in Govan? Would it not be a criminal waste of a purpose-built facility that is only 10 years old, in an area of desperately high unemployment, if the centre were to close, and will he intervene to prevent that disaster?
    Mr. Younger: I note the right hon. Gentleman's points about Govan skillcentre and I shall discuss them with my colleagues. The new Skillcentre Training Agency will adopt a commercial approach to training and will consider the role of the skillcentres as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the MSC in Scotland, will he ask him to examine carefully the YTS scheme, especially as it is not working at the moment in the Edinburgh area, where companies such as Ferranti cannot take on boys because the trade unions will not allow it?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that where there are objections to the youth training scheme every effort should be made to try to resolve those objections so that the maximum opportunity is given to young people to take advantage of the scheme.
    Mr. Dewar: Although I welcome the kind words of the Minister about the community programme, will he go a little further and reassure the House that the number of places in the community programme in Scotland will not

    247
    be cut next year? The present number of places is about 16,000 and, given the unemployment situation, would it not be a disgrace if the number were to decline significantly when there are 350,000 Scots on the dole queue?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of the community programme. As he will know, there was a pause in the starting of new schemes late last year to avoid overshooting the target for which funds were available. However, by providing an extra £15 million nationally for the community programme the Government have ensured that the build-up of places to this year's target may be resumed. The hon. Gentleman must await the public expenditure proposals to see how next year's target can be fitted in.

    Irvine Skillcentre
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay a visit to Irvine Skillcentre.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Lambie: Although the Secretary of State has no plans to visit Irvine skillcentre, I hope that he will do so in the immediate future. Is the Minister aware that the management control of skillcentres has now passed to the Skillcentres Training Agency, and that a review of the future of skillcentres is being undertaken by that agency? Can the Minister give the House any information about the decisions taken at a meeting of the MSC on 26 January, when the future of the skillcentres was discussed? Will any of those decisions affect Irvine skillcentre?
    Mr. Stewart: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman, as the White Paper, "Training for Jobs" stated, that the MSC's training programme must be more closely related to specific rather than speculative training demands. Skillcentres will have to adjust to changing demands. It is worth noting that the recent announcement that SCI Systems Incorporated and the Climax Computer Corporation will move to Irvine will create opportunities for more business to come to Irvine skillcentre.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the unemployed have more chance of obtaining work if they are skilled, so it is extremely important that these skillcentres should continue? Does he accept that in an area of high unemployment, such as Cunninghame, there are not enough private firms to finance the teaching and training of those youngsters, and that anything the Government can do to help these skillcentres will be extremely important, especially now that we have—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to Irvine skillcentre.
    Mr. Stewart: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that skillcentres will continue to play an important role, and I emphasise that we are talking about an adult training programme in which the number of training places will increase from the present 110,000 to 250,000.
    Mr. McKelvey: Although I accept that new skills are coming into Ayrshire that may help Irvine skillcentre, does the Minister appreciate that that is a traditional engineering area? Does he further accept that, since engineering outlets
    248
    are rapidly disappearing, if the upturn in the economy which we have been promised should occur, it will be necessary to maintain Irvine skillcentre for engineering processes? Will the Minister bear that in mind if and when there is a threat to close that skillcentre?
    Mr. Stewart: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and no doubt the MSC will also note it. As I emphasised in response to the question from his hon. Friend, it is important for skillcentres to take every opportunity to look at possible new demands for their services.
    Mr. Craigen: In view of the importance that the Minister constantly says he attaches to adult and youth training, will he give a firm undertaking to the House today that he will visit Irvine skillcentre, and, for that matter, Hillington and the ever-threatened Dumbarton skillcentre, and others in Scotland, to ensure that the maximum use is made of their facilities?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall continue to have a well-balanced programme of visits around Scotland.

    Child Welfare
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with representatives of the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children any special initiatives which might be undertaken in view of its centenary in the current year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My Department is regularly in touch with the society and with local authorities about measures relating to the welfare of children. My right hon. Friend was pleased to give a reception in Edinburgh at the end of last year to mark the launch of the society's appeal to business and industry in this its centenary year.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the view that somewhere in Britain every week a child dies from injuries inflicted by its parents? Does he agree that that is an indication of the disturbing amount of child abuse 100 years after the society was formed? Will he look at the budget of the Scottish Office to see whether it, as well as the general public, can do more to help this worthy cause, even if at the expense of other causes which seem to get surprising support from the Scottish Office?
    Mr. MacKay: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the continuing child abuse in this day and age. Along with other agencies, the local authority social work departments maintain registers of children who are at risk, from which we would hope to pick up cases where children may be liable to abuse by their parents. In this financial year we gave the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children a grant of £76,750 for the Overnewton centre, which deals specifically with the problem of child abuse.
    Mr. Norman Hogg rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Douglas Hogg.
    Hon. Members: "Oh!"
    Mr. Norman Hogg: No matter which House you may visit, Mr. Speaker, the real Hogg is the one who is here today.
    Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Mr. Norman Hogg.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister agree that the best special initiative which the Tory Government could take would be to restore the funding of local government so that grants paid to a caring organisation such as the charity mentioned could be restored to a proper level and could do its job, as could the social work departments? Will he give an undertaking that he will stop making bland remarks about the caring services over which he presides, and instead see to it that these services are capable of doing the job for which they are intended?
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman has missed the fact that during the past four to five years the amount of money spent on social work under this Government has increased considerably. It is up to local authorities to decide their contributions to the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I hope that they will continue to make that contribution, and not decline to make it for doctrinaire reasons because they would rather their own professionals did it than this splendid voluntary organisation.

    Glue Sniffing
    Mr. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the new legislation is having in the control of the habit of glue sniffing.
    Mr. John MacKay: The Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Act 1983, which makes solvent abuse a ground for referral of a child to the reporter to a children's panel came into effect on 13 July. Since then, more than 300 children have been referred to reporters.
    Mr. Hill: I apologise to my Scottish colleagues for asking this question, but there is great interest in this legislation throughout the United Kingdom. Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in Cabinet, to emphasise the need for this legislation, or equivalent legislation, throughout the United Kingdom? Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that centres are now needed in every area, not only to carry out research into this terrible problem, but to provide residential aid and advice centres where parents and, of course, the victims of this habit can go? Does he agree that not only juveniles, but all age groups are involved?
    Mr. MacKay: I welcome my hon. Friend's congratulations on the Scottish legal system, but the children's panel system is unique to Scotland and therefore the road down which we have chosen to go is not entirely applicable to England. We, like our colleagues in the south, are conducting research into the problem and looking forward soon to a document from researchers explaining the prevalence of this serious problem and suggesting ways in which we might tackle it.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that English Opposition Members also congratulate Scotland on being far in advance of the rest of the United Kingdom? Has the Minister's Sassenach colleagues consulted him on how to bring the law of the rest of the United Kingdom into line with Scottish law, and in particular on how to bring to trial the evil and wicked people who push glue, who can be brought to trial in Scotland, but not in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MacKay: I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in the case of the people who were
    250
    selling glue, the court found that under Scottish common law it was criminal to engage in wilful and reckless conduct which caused real injury to a third party. A charge was brought successfully under Scottish common law. I hestitate to suggest it, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should look to English common law in a similar way.
    Mr. Fairbairn: If hon. Members of the United Kingdom Parliament do not understand the law of Scotland and wish to stop the appalling effects of glue sniffing, let them develop the common law of England as we have developed the common law of Scotland. Will my hon. Friend advise hon. Members that it is not only a case of people who push glue in England but, as demonstrated by a recent newspaper poll, the fact that in any store in England one can buy glue with great ease?
    Mr. MacKay: I am sure that the House is grateful for that weighty and free legal opinion. I can tell my hon. and learned Friend that my right hon. Friends responsible for these matters in England and Wales are equally alive to the problems. I know that the Secretary of State for Social Services has had discussions with trade representatives about the matter to try to narrow the outlets through which children gain access to the substances about which we are talking.

    Public Assets (Transfers)
    Mr. Bruceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on assessing discounts in transferring assets from the public to the private sector in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: Discounts are restricted to particular types of property—mainly agricultural land settlement estates and local authority houses. Where discounts are given, the amount depends on the circumstances and is applied to the market value as assessed by the district valuer.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification of policy. Is he aware that there is considerable concern that the Government's transfers of assets in public ownership to private ownership are not at a price that is to the advantage of the taxpayer? Will the Minister explain on what basis such a national asset as the land on which the Scott Lithgow yard is built might be transferred? May we have an assurance that such a transfer will not be at less than the commercial value and that the interests of the public at Inverclyde and Scotland as a whole, as well as the taxpayer, will be secured?
    Mr. Younger: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. I should have thought that he would strongly agree with me that the principal objective of all the efforts made on the lower Clyde is to find a new operator who is prepared to carry on the business of offshore construction on that site. That is the principal objective of British Shipbuilders as it negotiates with the various parties which have shown an interest.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) voted against the extension of discounts for council tenants who wished to buy their houses? The policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants has benefited those who wish to buy, because more resources are available for housing and for the ratepayers at large.
    Mr. Younger: I was as surprised as my hon. Friend to find the Liberal party representative voting in that direction. I hope that that will be noted. Figures were published yesterday showing that between 1 October 1980 and 30 September 1983 no fewer than 37,668 houses had been sold to their tenants in Scotland. That policy has been widely welcomed, in spite of the Liberal party's actions.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that Norway has customarily tied the issue of oil licences to industrial opportunities? How does the right hon. Gentleman manage to arrive at the position where oil licences are granted from the Clyde to BP, and BP is allowed to kick Scott Lithgow in the stomach about the removal of the oil rig order? Is it not an example of exemplary incompetence on the Government's part that they have managed to reach the stage where no pressure is brought to bear on the oil companies to bring jobs to Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I am surprised to find the hon. Gentleman so woefully ill-informed on this matter. First, I should have thought that Norway would be the last country which we would wish to emulate on oil policy, because Norway has various problems. Secondly, as I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would know, we regularly exceed 70 per cent. of the content of North sea oil orders being produced in this country, and that is a pretty good record after 10 years of development.
    Dr. Godman: Given the known shortage of industrial land in Greenock and Port Glasgow, what scope does the Secretary of State see for British Shipbuilders and the Clyde port authority for leasing or selling to the Scottish Development Agency non-operational land which could lead to the enlargement of industrial and developmental land in the area?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. He will probably agree that the first priority is to ascertain what will be needed for offshore construction activity. If areas of the present yard are surplus to requirements for the future, I agree with him that we must see whether they can be turned to other industrial uses.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that Scottish public authorities — regional councils — are giving large discounts to district councils when transferring housing with sitting tenants, when those discounts are being denied to the tenants themselves? Will he, in examining this policy, redress this so that tenants are not put at a disadvantage?
    Mr. Younger: I am aware of that point, and that is something we shall be looking into to ascertain whether there is any way of putting it right.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State accept that we have a vehement hope that, despite months of ministerial indifference, a solution will be found to the crisis on the lower Clyde? Will he note that we shall want the fullest information about any deal concluded and the financial implications to the private purse?
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Has he considered recent reports about the possible cancellation of the BP rig order at the Scott Lithgow yard? Has he been in touch with BP, a company which is 48 per cent. owned by the Government and which has recently been successful, as announced yesterday, in
    252
    obtaining a licence on the Clyde? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me, and will he urge upon that company, that it makes no sense to cancel the contract, which is within a few weeks of completion?
    Mr. Younger: It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman, who had not opened his mouth on this subject until about three weeks ago, to talk about nothing being done all through last summer, when we were doing everything possible during that crisis. This is a straight matter of the contract between British Shipbuilders and BP. If BP contemplates moves, British Shipbuilders will deal with them.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to hon. Members that we have not got through many questions so far today. I propose now to go rather more rapidly, and I ask for much shorter supplementary questions.

    Primary School Pupils
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: In 1982–83, net expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Scotland at outturn prices was £821. This represents an increase of 13 per cent. at constant prices over the figure for 1978–79, which was £410.
    Mr. Knox: Was the figure for 1982–83 the highest ever in real terms?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes. As I have emphasised to my my hon. Friend, that figure represents an increase of 13 per cent. over the 1978–79 figure. That shows that at a time of necessary public expenditure constraint we are achieving our objective of maintaining standards in Scottish education.
    Mr. Maxton: How much of that money, per pupil, is spent on books and equipment in primary schools? Does the Minister agree that there has been a large reduction, in real terms, in the money spent on those pupils? Does that not imply a decline, not an upsurge, in the standards of Scottish education?
    Mr. Stewart: I am delighted to respond to that question. In each year since 1979 the provision made by the Government in the rate support grant settlement for text and library books corresponded to higher expenditure per school pupil in real terms than in the previous year. The net expenditure per pupil by education authorities on text and library books fell in real terms. That was the result of decisions taken by individual authorities.

    Rating and Valuation (Representations)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish office-bearers of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. regarding his proposals to amend the rating and valuation legislation in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The federation submitted comments

    253
    on our White Paper and on the debate on the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. My right hon. Friend has been sent copies of circular letters in which the federation states its preference for a reform of the rates, but, given their continuation, supports our proposal to place a general limitation on rates and advocates greater public access to local authority accounts.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the House is interested to know that the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. shares the disgust of many that the Government did not take the opportunity to reform the rating system, as they earlier said that they would. Given that we must persevere with the present system, would it not be of greater assistance to small businesses and the self-employed if the Scottish Office team were to try to persuade the Treasury to give an abatement of about 10 per cent. for rates presently incurred by small businesses?
    Mr. Ancram: I noticed how that the hon. Member voted on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am sure that that has been noticed by those running small businesses in Scotland. The best help that can be given, not just to commercial and industrial ratepayers but to domestic ratepayers is for local authorities to restrain their rates. That is what the Government have been trying to persuade them to do for the past five years.
    Mr. Malone: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposals contained in the current legislation insisting upon consultation between small businesses and local authorities will be widely welcomed? There is a precedent in Aberdeen, where the chamber of commerce is consulting highly successfully with Grampian regional council. It would be extremely helpful if that were extended to those district councils which at present do not consult.
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth remembering that small businesses pay a vast proportion of the rates. It is right that they should have a voice in how those rates are set.
    Mr. Craigen: How does the Minister respond to the organisation that represents small businesses about the fact that the Government reneged on the promises that they made during the past decade, saying that it was their intention to do away with the present rating system? Moreover, why is he not consulting more business men rather than relying entirely on big business?
    Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we consulted about rate reform and the results of that consultation were inconclusive. We felt that there was little point in replacing rates with an unfamiliar and untried system having little support from the outset. The hon. Gentleman's interest simply does not ring true when we study the remarks that Opposition Members have made about our rating legislation. It is clear that it is Conservative Members who care for the ratepayers and the Opposition who do not.

    Gaelic Language
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any request from the Central regional council for financial assistance in the current financial year to support the teaching of the Gaelic language in schools.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Forsyth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Highlands area of my constituency, Central region has consistently refused to provide for the teaching of Gaelic in schools—despite clear evidence of parental demand —and has blamed lack of resources, although resources are found to teach Russian? In assessing the Conservative commitment to extend parental choice, will he take this into account?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern on this point, about which he has written to me. I understand that a class in Gaelic is now being offered at Maclaren high school in Callander on a trial basis It is up to the education authorities and head teachers to decide whether Gaelic, or other options, such as Russian, are required in the curriculum. I am not able to comment on the relative demand for Russian and Gaelic in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the pathetic response of some councils in Scotland is due to their taking a cue from the Scottish Office, which has not given support for the language that the countries behind the iron curtain give to their cultures? Will he take up with his right hon. Friend the fact that the language has been pathetically supported by the Scottish Office in the past and do something more realistic about it, in the light of the more encouraging returns from the last census?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we have supported the bilingual education project in the Western Isles, and that is currently being evaluated. On his first point, I do not believe that the Scottish education system should emulate the characteristics of education systems behind the iron curtain.
    Mr. Kennedy: Following the question from the right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), will the Minister concede that there is considerable disappointment among various bodies and individuals who are trying to promote Gaelic language and Gaelic culture about the recent level of support indicated by the Scottish Office? Will he further give some indication whether the Scottish Office, if and when invited, will send a representative to the two-day conference being organised by the Highlands region in Inverness on the promotion of the language? Will he also say, finally, whether the Government will send a representative to the National Mod which will be held in Cape Breton in 1985, for the first time outwith the shores of Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I note the various invitations that the hon. Gentleman makes to me. I emphasise to him the support that we give to the Gaelic language and culture.
    Mr. Kennedy: How does it compare with the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Stewart: The Scottish Office continues to give substantial support to the various organisations involved, and I would expect broadly that, despite public expenditure constraints, we would be able to maintain that support at the same level. In reply to the seated intervention of the hon. Gentleman, our support for the Gaelic language works out at about 93p per capita of the speaking and writing population, and our support for the Welsh language works out at about 93p per capita also.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister concede, in response to the request implicit in question No. 8 from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), that a massive injection of public funds is required to support the Gaelic language? The experiment that is being carried out in Maclaren high school in Callander is taking place with the active cooperation of the rector who is taking the first-year class. That kind of arrangement can persist for one year only, and it will require money from the Scottish Education Department to fund it on a longer and wider basis.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is correct about the trial period for the class at Maclaren high school. However, financial support for the education service, along with support for other local authority services, is provided through the rate support grant. Finally, I do not suppose that even the hon. Gentleman believed his first point.

    Orlit Houses
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current policy of the Scottish Office arising out of confirmation of deterioration in certain Orlit houses or their variants in Scotland.
    Mr. Ancram: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on 10 November 1983 and to my replies to him of 6 and 13 February 1984.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Building Research Establishment finds that there is deterioration in those houses, it is essential that compensation should be paid to those who have bought their council houses, and that the situation should be fully dealt with in the Bill that the Government are about to introduce?
    Mr. Ancram: I can confirm the Government's concern about owners of defective houses. It remains the Government's intention to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide financial assistance in the form of reinstatement grant, or, in certain circumstances, to repurchase from owners defective houses sold by the public sector.
    Mr. Hugh Brown: Some of us do not carry in our heads replies and statements given last November. Will the Minister recognise the difficult circumstances facing tenants, and not just those who have bought their houses? Will he at least listen to a bit of special pleading from those authorities that have many such houses?
    Mr. Ancram: It is a matter for the owning authority, obviously, to assess the condition of the houses in its stock and to formulate its own plans for dealing with the problem. Obviously, local authority expenditure on defective houses remaining in their stock will be taken into account in the normal way in determining the housing capital allocations.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Although I accept what my hon. Friend has just said, I must concur with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), that local authorities that have Orlit houses in their area are unable to provide the necessary finance to reinstate them. Will my hon. Friend ask all Scottish local authorities to
    256
    submit to him the number of defective houses and the relative cost involved in putting them right, and then see what steps can be taken by the Scottish Office to provide the necessary funds for their reinstatement?
    Mr. Ancram: I accept the seriousness of that question, but the defects in Orlits must be put alongside other problems in the housing stock. It is for local authorities to assess those problems and their priorities, and to make their bids for allocations accordingly. I hope that that is what they will do.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that Kirkcaldy district council has already made its assessment and estimates that it will cost £55 million for one housing authority alone to bring those non-traditional houses up to decent standards? The hon. Gentleman has refused to meet representatives to discuss such matters. Will he now undertake to meet them and Members of Parliament to discuss the disgusting state of those houses? The longer they stay as they are, the sooner they will fall down around the tenants' ears.
    Mr. Ancram: Before the hon. Gentleman's words can ring out causing fear to some of those who live in Orlits, I must say that the reports of the Building Research Establishment show that no structurally unsafe conditions exist in the house types studied. Of course the problem is serious, but as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, there are other serious problems involving houses. It is up to the local authorities to decide their priorities and to make their bids accordingly.

    Forestry Commission
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Forestry Commission regularly, their most recent meeting being last Friday.
    Mr. Kirkwood: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Forestry Commission, will he put on the agenda the problem of the Government's refusal to release the purchase price figures for forestry estates in the forestry enterprises that belong to the Forestry Commission? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the great public concern that exists, some of us on the alliance Benches may have to take the information available to us from local forestry workers and place on early-day motions the purchase prices of those forests in -order to get round the problem? It is indefensible to keep such prices secret and it is not in the public interest.
    Mr. MacKay: I have made it clear to the hon. Member that to disclose this information would amount to a breach of the normal confidentiality that is expected between purchaser and seller in land transactions. All sales of commission land and plantations have been made on the understanding that the details of the price paid by the purchaser would not be disclosed. There can be no question of going back on that. I assure the House, as I have done before, that the commission always sells at a price that reflects the value of the property to it for forestry purposes.
    Sir Hector Monro: In view of various public statements, will my hon. Friend say how many jobs have

    257
    been lost to forestry by sales to private individuals and how many have been lost through reorganisation within the Forestry Commission?
    Mr. MacKay: Since 1 October 1981, the Forestry Commission estimates that some 916 jobs have been lost to the commission. Only about 20 of those jobs are linked to the sale of plantations. The rest of the job loss is associated with a combination of factors, including the loss of the market for timber, improvement in productivity, the use of contractors rather than direct labour in some areas and a continuing drive for efficiency.
    Mr. Home Robertson: We know that the Government are hell-bent on throwing away public assets, including forestry, at any undisclosed cut price. Why do they refuse point blank even to include conditions in the sale agreements to get recognised public access to such lands? An example is a very popular forest walk in Pressmennan in east Lothian.
    Mr. MacKay: We drew to the attention of the Forestry Commission guidelines to be borne in mind when it decided which plantations it would put up for sale. One thing we drew to its attention was public access. We expect the Forestry Commission to remember that, among other factors, when it considers which plantations it will sell. There is little or no evidence that new owners of forestry plantations, or, indeed, the large private sector which plants on its own account all over the country, deny access to the public.
    Mr. Corrie: When he meets the commission, will my hon. Friend discuss with it whether acid rain is causing problems anywhere in Scotland, as it is in Europe? Will he also discuss the possibility of carrying out research to find out exactly what acid rain is and why it is causing such problems in Europe?
    Mr. MacKay: The Forestry Commission, like other agencies, is concerned about the incidence of acid rain and its impact on timber-growing. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will draw these matters to the attention of the chairman of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety and disgust at the clandestine handling of the sales of Forestry Commission lands? Is he also aware of the complete collapse of credibility and confidence in the Scottish Office as the lead Department in the disposal of the assets of Hamilton college of education? Will he take account—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not a Scot, but has this got anything to do with the Forestry Commission?
    Mr. O'Neill: It is the lead Department which is selling off two sets of assets. If it can go so far wrong on one, as it has in regard to Hamilton college, it may get it even more wrong when it comes to the Forestry Commission, where we do not know the sums involved.
    Mr. MacKay: It is a sad reflection on the Opposition spokesman on agriculture that he does not know a sitka spruce from Hamilton college of education. I have made my position on the sales perfectly clear. I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, even after the sales programme as currently set down is completed, the Forestry Commission will remain a major force in the forestry industry.

    Housing Improvement Grants (Survey Fees)
    Mr. Allen Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider reimbursing from Government funds those people who have incurred survey fees as a prerequisite to a local authority housing improvement grant, who now find that no such grant is available.
    Mr. Ancram: Expenditure on fees may at present be included in the total expense that local authorities decide to approve for any improvement grant application where approvals are not given. There has never been, nor can there be now, any Government reimbursement of survey fees.
    Mr. Adams: Will the Minister stop waffling like a demented sponge on this issue? Is he aware that last year many ordinary home-owners, probably many of them traditional Conservative voters, went in good faith to their local surveyor and asked him to survey their property on the basis that they would get a home improvement grant? Out of the blue an iron curtain came down and they did not get the grant. Is the Minister aware that these people, many of them elderly and many of them traditional Conservatives, are now out of pocket by £400–£500? The House is entitled to ask whether the Government intend to do anything about that. Do they intend to reimburse these people in any way? Secondly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] — if, out of the goodness of their heart, the Government reinstate home improvement grants next year, will these people have to pay a second time?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me a lesson in demented sponges behind the iron curtain after, rather than during, Question Time. He must be careful what he says, because there was never an automatic or absolute entitlement to grant, and to suggest that there was is to distort the facts. The figures speak for themselves. In three years—last year, this year and next year — £350 million will have been spent on improvement grants in Scotland, and that is a record of which the Government can rightly be proud.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Caravans (Layby Parking)
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what instructions his Office has given to procurators fiscal with regard to the contravention of health and hygiene regulations by individuals who park a caravan in a layby.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): No instructions relating specifically to such matters have been given to procurators fiscal.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in my constituency there have been a number of cases in which individuals who have been charged with motoring offences have given their addresses as laybys in the constituency? Is he further aware that they have been carrying out the business of car and caravan repairs, causing health hazards as a result of vermin and other problems?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware that a number of travelling people have been sited at addresses where they have had encampments in laybys. I must

    259
    emphasise that the fact that they are so cited confers no legal authority on them to be there. I hope that my hon. Friend will take it as recognition of the fact that the policy of non-harassment, which has excited some controversy, extends only to unlawful encampment, as this demonstrates, and does not extend to other crimes and offences, which are properly brought before the courts.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that this question is part of a vendetta which the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has been waging against the travelling people for a long time? Is he further aware that the real criminals are the Tory Members of Parliament who have failed to persuade the local authorities to provide the right kind of sites and facilities for the travelling folk? [Interruption.] Regardless of interventions, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that is the crucial point and that it becomes almost a racial matter when it is taken to the extent that the hon. Member for Tayside, North takes it?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman shows an extraordinarily superficial lack of understanding of the issue. A number of his hon. Friends have been to see the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate to express their concern over the matter.
    Mr. Buchan: Give them sites.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the Secretary of State and I have said, there is a policy of non-harassment. The Scottish Office is doing everything to encourage the development of sites, and in Perthshire, in particular, that provision has already been made.
    Later:
    Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland you will recollect that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made an accusation about me, which was incorrect. I was responsible for my local authority changing the decision and bringing about the practice of having sites for travelling people in my constituency. Because of that, I thought that it was right that I should put the record straight, because there are now more travelling people in my constituency than before the decision was taken.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say.

    Royal High School Building, Edinburgh
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how much of the old Royal high school building, Edinburgh, is used as office accommodation by the Lord Advocate's Department.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Crown office buildings are fully occupied as office accommodation with the exception of the debating chamber, a lobby and a press room.
    Mr. Canavan: As a fortnight tomorrow will be the fifth anniversary of the referendum, when the majority of voters voted for a Scottish Assembly, although they were denied their democratic right, why have the Government refused the reasonable application from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly to hold a meeting in the old royal high school building on that day? Does the hon. and learned
    260
    Gentleman not feel like an illegal squatter, occupying part of a building that was earmarked for a Scottish Parliament, when he is a member of a Government who were rejected by over 70 per cent. of the people of Scotland and who have no mandate to rule the people of Scotland?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: When I consider the considerable duffing-up that the hon. Gentleman and his friends have received in the correspondence columns of The Scotsman and other newspapers for their ill-digested and ill-considered views on a Scottish Assembly, I am surprised that he has raised the matter. I would be very much more impressed if the matter were to be raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) or some of his other hon. Friends.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that his occupation of an office in the Royal high school is quite reasonable and much more suitable than anything suggested by Labour Members? Will he, from that office, consider the suggestion put forward by the Law Society of England that there should be a system of penalty for solicitors who are in default of their professional duty and that it should be a matter of penalty—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether that has anything to do with the question.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of the proposal that has been made by the Law Society of England, and I expect to meet the Law Society of Scotland in the near future. The matter may well be raised by the society at that meeting.
    Mr. Wilson: The isolationism displayed by some Members of the Labour party in their attitude to a Scottish Parliament is rightly condemned by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. However, will the Solicitor-General say how long the Government intend to defy the wishes of the Scottish people on this question?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman speaks for a party which lost 53 deposits out of 72 at the general election. However much he may challenge my right and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office to speak for Scotland, we have a considerably greater right to do so than he and the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Labour Government spent more than £1 million of taxpayers' money on renovating the high school building? Is it not therefore appropriate that the Lord Advocate's Department should make full use of a small part of the building?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I believe that we are making good use of the building, but, as I have pointed out, the chamber and lobby remain available at all times for the Scottish Grand Committee if it chooses to sit there, and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would also be free to use the lobby for any of its investigations.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the Solicitor-General for Scotland does not consider that the votes of 70 per cent. of the Scottish people in favour of parties supporting the Assembly are conclusive proof of Scottish opinion on the matter, what percentage of votes would he regard as conclusive?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have great difficulty in understanding exactly what the hon. Gentleman's party has to say about the issue. The views of the hon. Gentleman are clear enough, but if one talks to some of his southern colleagues to find out whether there is a unanimity of view, the matter is very different.
    Mr. Dewar: I note that a rather more robust political edge is creeping into the Solicitor-General for Scotland's answers. It will soon be rumoured that he and his noble Friend the Lord Advocate are about to join the Conservative party.
    Was not the real case for devolution made last night by the ludicrous arrangements enforced on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which had to sit until 5 am? If we had a directly elected Scottish Assembly, we could have a more effective legislative process. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland wishes to have personal experience of the force of that argument, he should attend the Committee, of which he is a member.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman talks about the Committee which he attended last night—[Interruption.]—Clearly the hon. Gentleman has no best friends. If he had any, they would have told him how boring he was.

    Child Assault (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years against persons who inflicted injuries on their children; and in how many of the cases the child had died.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The information is not available in the form requested, as these prosecutions can be recorded under any number of heads, such as assault. However, the number of persons prosecuted for murder or culpable homicide where the victim was the accused's child and aged under 16 was in 1978 five, in 1979 three, in 1980 two, in 1981 seven and in 1982 three. The figures for 1983 are not yet available.
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that information. What advice can he give to the general public on how to combat the extremely worrying problem of child abuse? Secondly, is the need for corroborative evidence a problem in securing a reasonable chance of successful prosecution?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am very much aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred. The figures that I have given for prosecutions clearly depend on sufficiency of evidence. From time to time, difficulties arise in identifying which parent perpetrated the assault.

    Questions to Ministers
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for this opportunity to seek your guidance on a matter of considerable importance to my constituents. A publication of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the "Civil Service Year Book 1984" in column 844, outlining the responsibilities of the Scottish Office regional policy
    262
    division, clearly includes the subject of steel. I put down a question about the future of the Gartcosh plant in my constituency and about Ravenscraig which was originally No. 5 on the Order Paper. It has now been withdrawn and appears at the very end as question No. 39, transferred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    My constituents, in common with all the people of Scotland, want to hear about the future of steel in Scotland from the Secretary of State for Scotland. May we have an assurance that a repetition of today's occurrence will be discouraged and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will answer to the people of Scotland for the steel industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Fnend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has raised a most serious matter. The Scottish Office team includes a Minister who is somewhat hopefully designated as the Minister with responsibility for industry in Scotland. The Scottish steel industry is a matter of central concern to everyone in Scotland. If questions about that industry cannot be put to the Secretary of State, that is a lamentable state of affairs. My clear recollection is that we were previously able to put such questions, providing useful opportunities to test Government policy and the intentions of Scottish Office Ministers in this area.
    It would be a sad derogation of power from Back-Bench Members for Scotland if the Government were allowed to hide behind a technicality and move matters of fundamental importance out of the firing line at whim. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, can offer us protection and firm guidance to ensure that the Secretary of State and his colleagues cannot hide from proper scrutiny, as has apparently occurred on this occasion.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A related issue which throws further light on the problem is the practice of some United Kingdom Departments with responsibilities for industry and other matters overlapping with those of the Scottish Office to refer to the Scottish Office letters addressed to them by Scottish Members. The Government seem to be applying double standards in these matters, sometimes choosing to answer questions addressed to them in writing and sometimes referring them away — at their own convenience and not that of Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Alex Eadie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to be the custodian of industry in Scotland. Coalfields all over Scotland are alight. The Secretary of State should have been prepared to make a much-needed statement on Scottish industry. There is a need for a public inquiry into administrative mismanagement—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a different point of order, which the hon. Gentleman should raise later on. Let me deal with the original point of order.
    Mr. Eadie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal first with the earlier point of order.
    Mr. Eadie rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentleman again to deal with his point of order.

    263
    In relation to the earlier point of order, I am not responsible for the transfer of questions. I thought that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said that he had received an apology. As the hon. Gentleman indicates to the contrary, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is present, has noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House, but this matter is of fundamental importance. I would be satisfied, with your ruling that you were not responsible for the transfer of questions if someone was responsible and could offer us protection, but that does not appear to be so. If the transfer of questions in that way is entirely at the whim of Ministers, the House has no control over such arbitrary authority, which prejudices our rights. With all respect — that is not an empty phrase — you are our ultimate custodian. If we can appeal to no one else when the processes of the House are being abused by the Secretary of State, and he avoids answering relevant questions on the Scottish economy, I respectfully suggest that there must be some way in which the House can be protected. If not, we ought to look at ways of introducing rules to give such protection. The present situation is quite intolerable.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me call the Secretary of State to answer first.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Younger): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have every wish to answer questions when I can usefully do so. I am advised that all that is required is for the Table Office to be consulted to make sure that the question's wording is correct. There is no difficulty in hon. Member's tabling a question on Scottish industry for me to answer.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: Who transfers them, then?
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my point of order is within your responsibilities. If I remember correctly, when we reached question No. 5 your stricture was that Scottish Questions should proceed apace, yet we reached question No. 6 only after 25 minutes, and it took us a further 25 minutes to get to question No. 11. Without questioning your rate of productivity, Mr. Speaker, will you reflect on the fact that hon. Members who table questions are not called, whereas hon. Members who have not tabled questions, especially Conservative Members, are called repeatedly?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Our rate of productivity with Scottish questions has not been good today. Supplementary questions and ministerial answers were fairly long. I am sorry that we did not get to the hon. Gentleman's question. I do try to call hon. Members whose questions appear later on the Order Paper. Today, 14 hon. Members were so called to speak in Scottish
    264
    questions. I am genuinely sorry that the question tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was not reached today.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that I have received no apology from any quarter for the non acceptance of this question. I tabled a question for written answer and the reply, published in Hansard last Friday, suggested that the original question should have been accepted and, therefore, I fully expected that the question would be on the Order Paper today.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when an hon. Member puts down a question in the Table Office, the practice is that if he is not satisfied with what happens to that question he has the ultimate sanction of going to Mr. Speaker and asking him to adjudicate upon it. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) put down a question that was agreed by the Table Office, which meant that, in effect, it had been agreed by Mr. Speaker, because he has the ultimate authority. My hon. Friend was told at a late stage that he would lose his place on the Order Paper. Not only has he suffered as a result of that chicanery, but Mr. Speaker, who is responsible and who has the ultimate authority for all questions, has also suffered. Therefore, my argument is that Mr. Speaker must be responsible for the questions that are put down. He must have the ultimate authority for whether they are put on the Order Paper or shifted at the last minute.
    Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the Secretary of State for Scotland said, but it was not an entirely satisfactory solution to our problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made an important point. There was consultation with the Table Office, which was implicit in the fact that the question was submitted and accepted, and appeared on the Order Paper. It is alarming that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West has been prejudiced at the last minute. If he had been contacted immediately and given an opportunity to redraft his question so that it had the chance of appearing in a good place on the Order Paper, as an oral question, I would understand the interjection by the Secretary of State. There is a case, not for a ruling today, but for the matter to be taken away and considered to see whether guidelines can be drawn up so that hon. Members in that predicament can be helped. We should put into context the situation in which the Table Office accepts a question, and thus by implication says that it is in order, and the Minister, at a late stage, prejudices the position of hon. Members. There is cause for thought. The matter should be looked at in a more considered way. I say that in the hope that you will be able to respond, Mr. Speaker, to what I think everyone on the Opposition Benches considers to be a matter of importance.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a matter of some importance. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said earlier, I am the custodian of the rights of Back Benchers. I shall, of course, take the matter away and look at it again. I say to the hon. Member

    265
    for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the only questions that have ever been brought to me are those about which there is doubt as to whether they are in order. No question has ever been brought to me on a transfer. It would be putting a heavy load on Mr. Speaker if he had to adjudicate in every case on whether questions should be transferred. However, I shall look at the matter again and make a statement.

    BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 2 MARCH
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Mr. John Fraser

    Mr. Allan Roberts

    Mr. David Winnick

Local Government Elections (Proportional Representation)
3.44 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an electoral system for all local government elections in the United Kingdom based on proportional representation; and for connected purposes.
Many people, both inside and outside the House, will recognise that this measure is particularly well timed in the light of the problems currently facing local government. Local authorities operate under Acts of Parliament and they frequently act as agents of central Government. I believe that most hon. Members would agree that as a general rule it is desirable that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people affected by them. It is also recognised that local people are the best qualified to appreciate the problems and opportunities in their areas and to take decisions accordingly.
The Bill aims to ensure that local authorities are elected in a way that makes them truly representative of their local communities. A number of benefits will accrue —[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I believe that being representative of one's community is a worthy objective.
At present, many people feel that their local councils do not properly represent them. I draw the attention of the House to the way in which this was highlighted by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the Minister for Social Security, who, when referring to parental choice in a debate on appeals procedure under the Education Act 1980, said:
"There is a similar disappointment for the people who voted Conservative in Stockport, North and those who voted Labour in my constituency. They might ask what the point is in voting. Whatever people may think of the person who represents them, it is a funny system. People vote and then find out that they are not represented."—[Official Report, 20 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 802.]
I and many hon. Members understand that in their present frustration the Government are finding a relatively small number of local authorities in direct confrontation with them, and as a result the Government are taking a number of measures to increase central control over local authorities. Clearly those measures are controversial in the House—a controversy that cuts across party divisions.
I single out two authorities that are perhaps the highest in political awareness as demonstrating the conflict with the Government, Liverpool and the GLC, which are both Labour-controlled. In neither case did the Labour party secure an overall majority of the votes, yet it has a substantial majority of the seats. My Bill would help to moderate that occurrence, and would make the Government's proposed legislation to abolish those authorities unnecessary.
The Bill would not prevent progressive and radical councils from being elected, but it would ensure that the
party seeking to take control needed to win a wide base of support within the community. The Bill would deal with that by ensuring that local councils were elected in a truly representative way and that militant minorities could not take control against the expressed wishes of the majority of voters.
I also believe that such a measure would have additional benefits, because as every vote would count it is likely to
268
increase the turnout at local elections, which most people regard as lamentably low. It might also have the unexpected benefit in some cases of securing the return of independent candidates who are currently being squeezed out by party politics. Another advantage would be that it would enable systems of proportional representation to be tested in practice in the mainland of Great Britain. By assessing different systems politicians, be they favourably or disfavourably inclined, and the public would be able to see how PR works and what effect it has. As many councils already have multi-member wards, these are not unknown phenomena.
Mr. John Maxton: They are in Scotland.
Mr. Bruce: They have them in England and Wales, and this is a United Kingdom Bill. Given that multimember constituencies exist, it would not be difficult to introduce this system without substantially disrupting the existing method of drawing boundaries. There are relatively few councils in which the ruling party has a majority of votes. There cannot be straightforward transfers of votes under one system to the other because the system itself will change voting habits.
As I have already said, if the Bill is enacted it will increase the turnout at local elections. In the light of that, the Government would not find themselves in their present position in which many councils are under the control, on a minority vote, of the opposition and so in conflict with central Government. The overall conclusion would be a constructive relationship between central Government and local government in which representative councils would be responsible to their own communities and could be trusted to act on behalf of the communities. Instead of having to take powers away from local authorities, the Government could give them more power and know that that power would be responsibly handled.
Although the Bill does not seek to specify any particular system of proportional representation, I believe that it would enable different systems to be properly tested. Those who are sceptical—and there might be one or two of them in the Chamber—should support the Bill because it would enable them to see in practice how the proposals would work. The Bill is aimed exclusively at local government, and it would not prejudice systems that apply at any other level of government. The Irish people, in both north and south, have been able to cope quite happily with proportional representation in recent years. That is an extremely good example because it has been argued that the British people do not understand the system. It should be realised that the Irish can manage it quite well.
The case for introducing proportional representation for local government stands on its own merits, specifically in the present context where local authorities are having powers taken away from them because a minority of councils have abused their power and sought to confront the Government. If there were proper representation in local communities, local authorities would be able to work as true representatives in co-operation with Government and ensure truly democratic representative local authorities that would be able to take more power rather than less and to be trusted with it.
I believe that the Bill will and should commend itself to the House. It has support from all parties within the

269
House and many recognise that, although there are differences about the merit of changing the electoral system, local government is the only logical and sensible place to introduce change and that the present state of local government is such that now is the right time to introduce a measure of this sort. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill and ensure that democratic local government is truly democratic and truly local in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mr. David Knox, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. A. J. Beith.

Local Government Elections (Proportional Representation)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce accordingly presented a Bill to establish an electoral system for all local government elections in the United Kingdom based on proportional representation and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Low Pay
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the poverty, injustice and discrimination caused by low pay; condemns the Government for deliberately fostering low levels of pay; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon its threat to abolish Wages Councils.
  In the House we frequently and rightly debate the problems of unemployment and the misery, distress and diminution of life opportunity which afflict the standing army of unemployed. So we should. However, it is not to diminish one iota of our concern for the millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed to say that unemployment is not the only social evil of contemporary Britain. Today the Opposition seek to place firmly on the agenda of debate in the House and in the nation the serious and growing problem of low pay—the problems of the millions of our fellow citizens who are paid less than is necessary to maintain what the Council of Europe has called a decency threshold.
  Low pay is traditionally defined either as a problem of subsistence or in relation to other wage levels. From the subsistence point of view, a good proxy for an official poverty line of earnings would be a wage necessary to leave the wage earner with an income equivalent to supplementary benefit levels. In 1983–84 a family of four would need to have gross weekly earnings of £105·45 in order to take home an income equivalent to the supplementary benefit entitlement. The same family would be eligible to claim family income supplement to top up its wages on an income of less than £95 a week:.
  Viewing low pay from the relativity standpoint, the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth defined low pay as the lowest decile—the lowest 10 per cent.—of the manual male wage. In other words, 90 per cent. of male manual workers would have wages above that level. In 1983–84, the figure for the lowest decile is £91·30 weekly.
  If we accept the TUC's low pay target of two thirds Of average male manual earnings, we reach a figure of £95·73; and if we take it as two thirds of the medium male earnings, it is £100·20. If we take an international standard, the Council of Europe specified a decency threshold for wages equivalent to 68 per cent. of average adult earnings. In 1983–84 that definition would give us a figure of £101·25.
  Although each of those approaches is different and international, they all arrive, whether viewed from the poverty standpoint or from the relativity standpoint, at a figure not far below £100 a week. On that standard, the dimensions of the low pay problem in our society are staggering. According to the new earnings survey of the Department of Employment for April 1983, 3·5 million adult full-time workers—two-thirds of them women—

  271
  are earning low wages for a full working week, including overtime. If overtime is excluded, 4 million full-time adult workers could be classified as low paid.
  The survey also shows that more than 3 million part-time adult workers earned a low hourly wage in 1983, and more than half of all the part-time workers in Britain are included in that. Therefore, it is clear that the earnings of almost 7 million adult workers—nearly one third of the adult work force in Britain—fell below the Council of Europe's decency threshold for wages.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that as a result of the current overtime ban in the mining industry, which has lasted for about 16 weeks, it has become apparent to most miners—some might not have been aware of it previously—that, because there is no overtime, a substantial minority of NUM employees now earn less than the figure that he described, and a great majority of the pit head workers earn less than that? It is worth noting, when one hears about highly paid miners, that, in effect, a large percentage of them now earn less than the figure that he quoted.
  Mr. Smith: If my hon. Friend examines the new earnings survey, he will find that the lowest wage for a miner is very close to the minimum wage for the average working week. My hon. Friend's intervention shows that low wages in this country are disguised by perpetually worked overtime, and that if it was not for overtime and women working there would be more poverty among people in full-time work.
  We assert that a problem of such dimensions is a major cause of poverty and injustice in our society. We know that the low paid are now the largest group among the non-pension poor. In 1981, 680,000 people were living on an income below the supplementary benefit level, although they were in families with at least one wage earner. One quarter of those living in poverty—that is, people living below the supplementary benefit level—and over two fifths of those on the margins of poverty — that is, people with an income at supplementary benefit level and up to 40 per cent. above it—were dependent on an income from full-time work. In all, more than 3·75 million people—one tenth of all those in working families—were in poverty or on its margins.
  We cannot dismiss that simply as a problem of working wives. If it were not for the earnings of married women, four times as many families would have incomes below the poverty line. In 400,000 families, the wife is the sole breadwinner, due to her husband's unemployment. More than one in 10 families in Britain are single-parent families headed by a woman, a working woman. Altogether, in one quarter of all households in Britain today, the main or sole breadwinner is a woman.
  It is a problem of injustice—not just because of the diminution of life opportunities which low pay imposes on all those who are affected by it. It is also an injustice and a major source of discrimination, because the four groups in our society most afflicted by low pay are manual workers, women, young people and ethnic minorities.
  Moreover, it is a worsening problem. In 1979, one tenth of male manual workers were low paid. By 1983,. The proportion was one in six. Two thirds of manual working women were low paid in 1979. Now the figure is three quarters. That rapid increase in the dimensions of
  272
  the problem has been caused by the deliberate policies of the Government, and justifies our condemnation of them, as we say in our motion,
  "for deliberately fostering low levels of pay".
  Although the numbers of low-paid workers have been increasing, the Government have continued to argue that people are pricing themselves out of jobs. Government policy is directed — and increasingly directed — at lowering wages, with the so-called aim of job creation through low pay. We know already the depressive effects of unemployment itself — the use of the fear of redundancy as a political weapon to curb the ambitions of the poorly paid.
  That has been reinforced by the Government's attacks on the wages councils, by the effects of abandoning the fair wages resolution and repealing schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, by the effects of privatisation, and by the driving down of young people's wages through YTS allowances and the young workers scheme.
  I shall start with the wages councils. They were first established by Winston Churchill as trades boards almost three quarters of a century ago, in 1909. Since then, they have sought to set legally enforceable minimum rates of pay in low paying industries where workers were particularly vulnerable — what were once called "the sweated trades". In their justification, and the justification for their past and present existence, I can do no better than quote the words of Winston Churchill when he introduced the concept. He said:
  "It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil … But where you have … no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst … Where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration … the degeneration will continue, and there is no reason why it should not continue in a sort of squalid welter for a period which compared with our brief lives is indefinite." —[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
  I can do no better than commend that thought to the modern Conservative party, which has turned its back even on policies that were pursued by Conservative Governments during the 1930s.
  Wages councils have remained part of the scene of this country ever since they were introduced in 1909. Now this Government, going even further than the hard-faced Governments of the inter-war years, are set to abolish them and renounce our international obligations under the International Labour Organisation. In the meantime —they cannot renounce them until they give notice to the ILO on a specified date—they are busy undermining the wages councils. The number of inspectors to police the wages councils legislation has been cut by more than one third since this Government came to office. Not unnaturally, the number of inspections has gone down, and the number of prosecutions following those inspections has gone down.
  We know that illegal underpayment by employers has substantially increased. We know, too, that the Government themselves have withdrawn information about the minimum rates, with the result that even in their own jobcentres—this was recently proved in the west midlands—they often advertise jobs with illegally low pay. So much for the rule of law that we heard so much

  273
  about only a few months ago. What respect is there for the rule of law when the legislation that Parliament has passed for the protection of some of our most impoverished citizens is deliberately undermined?
  Why are the Government against the wage councils? The Foreign Secretary—whose concern for working people is well known—says that they price people out of jobs.
  I realise that there has been substantial criticism to the effect that wages councils have not been effective enough as protectors of the low paid. There is some substance in that criticism. We hoped that the wages council system would achieve better pay and conditions for our people than has been achieved during their existence. I argue that we should seek new ways of strengthening them, making them more effective and getting the minimum wages increased. To argue that people paid at wages council levels in hairdressing shops and garment factories are pricing themselves out of a job is simply laughable. It is about as risible as the Foreign Secretary's comments about the GCHQ dispute.
  That is the conclusion reached by a group of Cambridge economists, whom the Government specifically asked to look at the matter. They were asked to look at the effects of abolishing the wages councils, and I shall quote from their conclusions. They said that there was
  "no evidence of direct benefit from the abolition of wages councils. We found no evidence of any increase in economic efficiency, of any increase in total numbers of jobs in the industry and yet, at the same time, there was significant evidence of an extension of low pay".
  The Government's plan to undermine wages councils and then abolish them is to drive low levels of pay even lower and to make unprotected workers even more unprotected.
  There is a parallel in the abandonment of the fair wages resolution of this House, which was revoked in the last Parliament, and of schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which was repealed in the last Parliament. Both those protections for fair wages—to stop wage undercutting to the prejudice of low-paid workers — were removed by the Government in the
  course of that Parliament. The fair wages resolution had stood for many years. It was commended by a series of Conservative Governments before the political ice age descended in 1979. It was supported by successive Governments, and by both employers and trade unions. Good employers did not want the wages that they paid to be undercut by bad employers and other competition in wage cutting. Moreover, it was part of an international obligation, but the Government renounced it.
  Those protections, like the wages councils, were thrown away. We now know why the fair wages resolution and schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act were thrown away. It was to facilitate the privatisation of public services in this country and to let loose a spiral of destructive wage undercutting that would cut down the costs of providing ancillary services through the private sector.
  Private firms tendering for public services such as cleaning schools or doing ancillary health work cut their costs by cutting workers' wages. After being sacked from the public sector, people are re-employed by private sector firms at deliberately lower pay. Cowboy competition is let loose as firms which want to pay fair wages are
  274
  undermined by more ruthless competitors. Lower pay will lead inevitably to lower standards all round and throughout the public service.
  The most direct of the Government's wage-cutting schemes is the young workers scheme under which for the first time in this country employers are subsidised to encourage them to pay low wages to young workers. Believe it or not, employers receive a subsidy of £15 a week if they employ young people at below £42 a week. They get a subsidy of £7·50 a week if they are generous enough to increase the wage to £47 a week.
  Evidence to the Public Accounts Committee shows that 77 per cent. of the jobs under the young workers scheme would have existed anyway, at higher rates of pay, and that few new jobs have been created. Less than 10 per cent. of all subsidised jobs can be classified as new. That means that the Exchequer pays £5,355 for each new job with deliberately low pay.
  The Government's determination to keep the YTS allowance down to £25 is part of their low-wage strategy. The Manpower Services Commission has recommended regular updating of the YTS allowance, but of course that has not been done. If the updating had taken place, the allowance would now be between £34 and £38 a week.
  The Government have a deliberate policy to keep the allowance low so that it has a lowering effect on the wages of young people in work. The employer can say, "You would get only £25 under the YTS scheme, so you will not get any more from me." The Government seem to have a particular way of ensuring that young people are particularly badly paid.
  I have described deliberate acts of the Government. They cannot claim that the increase in the incidence of low pay is inevitable and cannot be avoided. I have established beyond doubt that the Government have done little other than foster low pay by deliberate policies.
  What is the Government's defence? It is in the amendment to the motion—
  "that the most important step towards any improvement in pay levels is by a general improvement in the economy".
  I suppose that we might agree with that. It would be helpful to have an improvement in the economy. The amendment then asks us to welcome
  "the encouraging signs of economic recovery".
  I confess that those signs escape me since there has been an increase in unemployment of 120,000 in the past week or two. I find it hard to find a place in my imagination, let alone in my sight, for encouraging signs of economic recovery.
  The amendment refers to "the improvement in training". We shall have to see about that. I welcome any steps taken to improve training, as far as they go, although I do not like the connection between training and very low remuneration. I shall not criticise the Government too much for that. The amendment refers to "the increase in productivity". Of course there will be some increase in productivity if employment is drastically cut. In some institutions there will be a bogus increase in productivity for a short time, but there will be no long-lasting or real improvements in productivity. We have experienced the short-term variety, if any, recently.
  The amendment also says that there has been a "reduction in inflation". Inflation is at about 5 per cent., but the Government have completely abandoned all other

  275
  objectives to keep inflation low. Part of the price of keeping inflation at 5 per cent. is 3 million unemployed. That is too high a price for that economic objective.
  I draw the attention of the House to the concluding part of the Government amendment, which says that the House should recognise.
  "that the number of people who have a job will depend directly on the levels of pay received by those in work."
  That is the most gobbledegook of defences of Government policy that I have heard for a long time. There is no reference to the direct connection between investment levels and those in work, between the general management of the economy and those in work or between the level of demand in the economy and those in work. According to the Government, the only connection is between the wage levels of those at work and the level of unemployment. That is another piece of evasion by a Government who continually evade their responsibility and are always transferring responsibility to some convenient scapegoat. The whole responsibility for increasing employment is removed from the Government and placed on the shoulders of those at work and, in the context of the motion, on the shoulders of the poorly paid. The notion of shuffling off the responsibility of promoting full employment from the elected Government on to low-paid workers is shocking and lamentable.
  I do not believe that a general cut in wages will lead to more jobs. If no jobs are available, it will not help if everyone takes a 10 per cent. cut in wages. Recent bogus studies by the Department of Employment which try to show that young workers price themselves out of jobs is not justified by the evidence. There is no proof that cuts in wages lead to more jobs. Indeed, that assertion reveals the confused state of Government economic policy which now appears to be, "Keep wages low and we will recover."
  Low demand will generally keep economic activity low. If we want an expanding, efficient economy we should go for targets of efficiency and productivity which, as we know from competitor countries, are associated more frequently with higher wages than with lower wages.
  An amendment has been tabled by the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. It was tabled with less than total enthusiasm since only one SDP Member and one Liberal Member are here to support it. They are always telling us that they do not have sufficient opportunity to take part in such debates. I am sure that they will have the opportunity today.
  The alliance amendment states that we should
  "take immediate action to tackle poverty by integrating the tax and social security systems and by introducing a basic benefit to reduce the number of existing benefits."
  It would be wrong to seek to solve the low-pay problem within the context of social policy, as if low pay and the poverty that accompanies it can be solved only by the social security system. That was the justification for the family income supplement. It is the justification for a Government who pay their own employees in the Civil Service, particularly in the manual grades, very low wages. When workers complain, the Government say, "You can come and collect your family income supplement." The Government refuse to increase pay, but say that workers can have the increase by claiming family income supplement. What the Government refuse to put in the pay packet they hand over the social security counter.
  276
  The family income supplement carries a stigma so serious that only half of those entitled to apply do so. People do not want to admit that they are poorly paid and ask for a supplement from the social security system. They want a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. That is what they should get. That is consistent with human dignity.
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments reveal a lack of understanding of the proposals in our amendment. I suggest that he looks further at the proposals because they are designed to deal with his criticism of the low take-up of benefits. Does he recognise also that our amendment proposes to make an addition to the motion and that we, like he and his hon. Friends, oppose the abolition of the wages councils and the other aspects mentioned in the motion?
  Mr. Smith: I am glad to know that there is at least some wisdom in the hon. Gentleman's thinking and that he accepts our motion. When he leads us into a discussion of social security benefits, there is a serious danger of attempting to get rid of the problem of low pay in the context of social security. That is the error into which the hon. Gentleman may fall. He is hinting at a so-called negative income tax system. I do not believe that many hon. Members would come into that category. [Interruption.] It might assist us if the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) were to pay some attention when I am seeking to answer his question. We should not ask the taxpayer to subsidise low-wage employers in order to bring the wages of their employees up to a reasonable level. Why on earth should the rest of the community be asked to bail out the low-wage paying employer who is not prepared to discharge his responsibilities? Why should low-paid workers, who should be paid decent wages for their work, be forced to go to social security offices to obtain a supplement to their wages? Why should the responsibility be shuffled off the backs of those employers on to taxpayers?
  Mr. Ralph Howell: Why has the Labour party never taken on the idea of a minimum wage?
  Mr. Smith: I proposed to deal with that point a little later, but I shall deal with it now. An important debate has started within the trade union movement and the Labour party about moving towards the adoption, I hope, of minimum wage provision. I do not disguise the fact that some problems must be overcome. [Interruption.] It will not help our discussions if idle-minded Conservative Members snigger. They are not prepared to face any of these problems.
  We are near the start of a new Parliament. We must face serious social and economic problems. The Labour party is thinking seriously and radically about solutions. We will be open and honest in the way that we discuss those problems. We shall cause those problems to be discussed in the House in debates such as this. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton, South stopped bleating so much and listened patiently, he would learn something to his benefit. We would all be assisted if he could control himself a little more. He usually has a better chance to speak in these debates than many Labour Members.
  I believe that we shall move towards a policy of adopting a national minimum wage, but it must be thoroughly discussed and analysed and proper proposals

  277
  must be put forward. As a first step, before we have the opportunity—this may be a little time from now—of implementing our policies from the Government Front Bench, we should reverse the recent regressive steps taken by the Government. Instead of seeking to abolish the wages councils, we should be strengthening and reinforcing them so that they act effectively in accordance with the law to protect low-paid workers. We should restore the fair wages resolution, which stood for decades through Government after Government, as a badge of the determination of the House that fair wages should be enforced. We should reintroduce schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, which allows low-paid workers the right to complain about poor comparability with others. The Government should show an example to their employees and abandon a policy of paying their employees wages below the levels which the Government say are insufficient properly to maintain a household. The Government should end the farce of paying wages partly in the pay packet and partly over the social security counter.
  I hope that the motion will start a serious debate about a serious problem. We believe that we have some of the answers to the problem, but we do not know confidently that we have all the answers. The Labour party cares deeply about the problems of low-paid people. That is one reason why the Labour party was brought into existence. Whoever fights or does not fight for the rights and cause of those people, the Labour party will always be in the forefront of the campaign against low pay.
  4.25 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the most important step towards any improvement in pay levels is by a general improvement in the economy; therefore welcomes the encouraging signs of economic recovery, the improvement in training, the increase in productivity and the reduction in inflation; and recognises that the number of people who have a job will depend directly on the levels of pay received by those in work.".
  I welcome the motion moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) which gives us the opportunity to discuss low pay. He was right to make those points in his penultimate paragraph. We are not discussing a subject that can be written off by a series of slogans of any kind. I hope that both sides of the House are concerned to find answers rather than merely pose problems.
  In our comparatively prosperous society, the relative disadvantage of lower paid workers is highly visible to them and to others. It is no good constantly pointing to the considerable improvement in real pay of those workers since the second world war because there is still the clear awareness of relative disadvantage. It is true that 50 years ago the low levels of real pay meant physical distress and grinding poverty of a type that no longer is the case. Nevertheless, that is small comfort—
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: That is not true.
  Mr. Gummer: It is not the same type of grinding poverty. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the sentence, he will find that we are not far apart in the
  278
  analysis of the problem, and that we can discuss our answers to the problem. That is the issue we are here to discuss.
  That small comfort is not very great for a worker on low income, even if he can house, clothe and feed those for whom he is responsible, if he cannot provide them with the standard of living to which he and they aspire and which he sees his neighbours enjoying. Those who pretend that we can provide a definition of low pay or of poverty unconnected with the general standard of living seem to be entirely missing the point. Such people cannot suggest that, because 100 years ago certain domestic necessities of life, such as the bathroom, were not available to anyone, that is still the case today. We must be careful, before we dismiss the correct view of all types of organisations whose work has been mentioned today., to remember that the question with which we are dealing is largely one of comparison. I hope that the House will agree, from the beginning of the debate, that none of us has a monopoly on compassion. Both sides of the House are equally concerned. We agree on the problem. We differ in how that problem can be tackled.
  It is notable that the original motion—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: How can it be tackled?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman would get further in discussing these issues if he started by accepting the sincerity of both sides of the House and arguing about the answers afterwards.
  It is notable that the original motion is strong on deploring and condemning but extremely weak on proposing solutions. The motion fails to relate the problems to general economic conditions and thereby fails even to suggest answers.
  I agree that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East made a number of proposals, and l hope to come to them, but the motion is about condemnation and does not contain any answers. I shall proceed shortly to discuss how justified that is.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I should like to get into my speech and then I would be willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman. When that time comes, I shall look forward to his contribution.
  If low pay is defined in relative terms, no matter how much we increase the standards of living for all our people, there will always be the low pay issue. The Government have therefore proposed an amendment to the motion because we believe that low pay deserves to be addressed in a constructive way. If we are to improve the position, we must improve low pay in absolute terms. That, inevitably, means that we must improve the country's economic performance. It is surely self-evident that the level of real pay in this country, or elsewhere, depends upon what we can produce and sell. Real pay can be improved only by improving our economic performance. There are no easy solutions. Legislation, incomes policies and printing money do not produce real wealth. That may not be palatable for the Opposition, and it may not be novel, but it happens to be true that to increase real earnings and to improve job prospects we must keep inflation down, improve productivity and sharpen our

  279
  competitiveness. There is no short cut. Those who say that there is are conning themselves and the most vulnerable people in our society. That is the issue between us.
  When people talk about compassion but offer solutions that will make the low-paid less well off and create greater inflation, they are only holding out false hopes. Conservative Members say that that is false compassion.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Skinner: How can the Minister talk about sincerity and compassion when his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) tries a week on supplementary benefit and finds that he cannot manage towards the end of the week? The hon. Member is not here today. Although there are low pay levels, the Government are threatening the wages councils while the Minister picks up another £5,000 to stuff in his back pocket without doing an extra day's work for it.
  Mr. Gummer: I rather expected most of what the hon. Gentleman said. He has supported every inflationary wage settlement since he has been in politics. Through his support, he is responsible for a great deal of low pay. If the hon. Gentleman had the sincerity that he professes, he would support the idea that those people who can force their position on to others should hold back and allow lower paid workers to take rather more of the available money. When those groups of workers are prepared to do that, and he supports it, we shall take him seriously.
  Those who believe in a minimum wage and constantly want to raise the lower wage levels are normally, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), not those who carry the logic through to the idea of a maximum wage level. The only argument that can advance the idea of an effective floor is one that provides for a ceiling as well. We shall come to the argument against that. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not put that case forward and until he is prepared to do so we cannot take him seriously.
  We must improve our competitiveness if we are to—[Interruption.] Is it not interesting that Opposition Members do not like that fact when it is mentioned because, as it is true, it is difficult for them to argue against it. It is not the simple shorthand answer, but it is the answer that comes from real compassion and it would be honourable to say that it is the only way in which we can solve our problems.
  We entered the world recession after a period in which our cost competitiveness had been heavily eroded by vast increases in money wages — [Interruption.] I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can interrupt when he has not been quiet enough to listen to what I have said. Those increases had been unsupported by the necessary increases in productivity. Money wages had been taking an increasing share of national income at the expense of profits and, therefore, of investment for the future.
  Over the past two years, because the Government have been carrying out their economic policy, our economic performance has greatly improved. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East spoke disparagingly about bringing inflation down to 5 per cent. and probably towards 4·5 per cent. My goodness, when his Government were in power would they not have loved to have been able to say that, because they know that bringing inflation down is the first prerequisite to improving living standards.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Coming to the subject of competitiveness and inter regional competitiveness, the "Regional Industrial Development" White Paper published by the Government before Christmas refers to wages being a component of regional policy. To what extent will wages policy affect the Government's decision on the allocation of industrial aid?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that was part of the request for discussion, and the advice is that wages policies do not have that effect. That is why the wording is in italics in the document. If he had read it more carefully he would have seen that. That is why the document was written in that way.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
  Mr. Gummer: If one allows one's inflation to increase higher than that of one's competitors, and one's goods become more expensive than theirs, it is not just more difficult to sell those goods but it becomes impossible to protect the jobs of the people who produce them. That is why inflation has a direct effect on jobs and wages.
  Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend talked about inflationary wage increases and seemed to be connecting wage levels with the level of inflation. Is it still his view that inflation is caused by wage levels?
  Mr. Gummer: I know that my hon. Friend takes the view that there is no connection between wages and inflation. He is well aware that I do not take that view, which is why he interrupted me to ask that question. I shall repeat to him that I do not agree with him; I have not agreed with him, and I am not going to change my mind in the middle of this debate. The connection is simple. If that part of the cost of goods caused by wages is higher here than in other countries, people are more likely to buy those other countries' goods rather than ours. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asked me to discuss the details of the connection between wages and inflation.—[Interruption.] We are not discussing the circulation of money; we are discussing the effect of wages upon inflation. Wages that are not earned by productivity increase inflation. If the hon. Member for Bolsover does not agree with that, he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It is the first time that they have agreed, and I am pleased to bring both sides of the House together so effectively.
  We have reduced inflation and increased profits. Opposition Members used to make noises when that was said, so I shall say it again. We have increased profits. That is good, because investment will come only from profits.
  The CBI is now forecasting a net real rate of return of 7·5 per cent. for 1984 compared with an estimated 4·5 per cent. for 1982. That is a major and important increase for the advancement of the economy.
  Mr. Skinner: No one believes the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gummer: The CBI believes me because those are its figures. It is interesting to note the Pavlovian reaction when the CBI is mentioned, and yet a large number of our jobs depend upon the CBI. The CBI produces a great many more jobs than the hon. Member ever has. He is in no position to attack the CBI.

  281
  The third element, which is the good news, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman told me there was none, is that investment is picking up. A rate of return of 7½ per cent. in real terms in manufacturing investment in 1984 is now expected by the CBI. Our cost competitiveness in manufacturing has improved by about 20 per cent. since 1981. Although the fact has escaped the notice of the Opposition, not only by the country's internal measures, but by the measures of those outside the country, the situation is improving considerably, and, with that improvement, we can do a great deal more for those on low pay.
  Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If it is true, as he asserts, that profits are up throughout British industry, why is it necessary to deprive workers of protection? Will these well-doing employers whose profits are up not be able to pay the wages that a wages council insists, instead of the Government driving them down?
  Mr. Gummer: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall deal with wages councils in great detail, and shall give way to him, if he so wishes. I will make the situation absolutely clear, I shall not duck the question, but will deal with it when I deal with wages councils.
  However, there is still a great deal of lost ground to make up, and it is on this that I wish to address my remarks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Those recent signs of the improvement in competitiveness that has been achieved since 1981 are not being maintained. In the year to the third quarter of 1983, unit wage costs in manufacturing industry in the country rose by 3 per cent. That was better than the 12 per cent. increase for one sector—engineering—in France, but unit costs in Japan did not rise. In the United States of America and in West Germany, they actually fell by 2 per cent. That is a serious fact for the future of jobs, and for wages in the country. It means that our competitors are able to produce goods more cheaply than we can in world markets, and that cannot but be harmful to our people. Our manufacturing earnings—
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way. I wish to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He referred to my grandmother. I wish that he had a grandmother as sensible as mine. My grandmother would have told him that the only answer to low pay is to improve the general profitability and the general standard of living of the whole country.
  Our manufacturing earnings are increasing faster than those of our main competitors. Looking again at the year to the third quarter of 1983, not only unit wage costs give cause for concern. Average earnings in manufacturing industry in this country rose by about 9 per cent. That is a little better than France which was 10 per cent., but it is very much higher than the 3 per cent. increase in the United States and in West Germany, and the 2 per cent. increase in Japan.
  The increase in our manufacturing earnings is partly accounted for by less short-time working—hours lost are running at the lowest level for four years—by more overtime, which is at the highest level since August 1980, and by higher bonus payments. That is to be welcomed.
  282
  That all reflects the growth in the economy, but some of the increase simply reflects the current level of pay settlements. Those pay settlements are, therefore, too high for our prospects. We must further reduce the level of settlements in manufacturing and other parts of industry.
  There has been a welcome return to economic reality over pay bargaining in the last few years. In the disastrous 1979–80 pay round, settlements were averaging nearly 20 per cent. across the economy. The previous Administration's failed incomes policy chickens came home to roost, including the famous comparability commission's post-dated awards for the public services. By 1980–81 we were down to 8·5 per cent. In 1981–82 the figure was 7 per cent, and in 1982–83 it was about 5·5 per cent. There is some indication that that will fall further, but it is falling only a little, which is not sufficient to maintain, let alone improve, our present cost performance compared with those of the country's main overseas competitors. Unless we are viable to maintain our competitiveness with the rest of the world, we shall be unable to maintain even the present level of jobs. The Opposition must accept that—
  Mr. Budgen: What about the exchange rate?
  Mr. Gummer: Irrespective of the exchange rate, if the position on settlements is made worse, that makes the overall position worse. The suggestion is that to the problems of the exchange rate must be added the extra problem of higher costs compared with those of our competitors.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall finish the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  It is important that the fruits of the recovery in the economy are not squandered on excessive pay settlements, with the prospects for further improvements thereby weakened. It is all right for Opposition Members to find it amusing to object to this, but the fact remains that, if we price ourselves out of markets at home and abroad, we shall have fewer jobs, and the wages of people in jobs will be severely affected.
  Mr. Budgen: Since my hon. Friend is saying a great deal about competitiveness, will he explain the role of the exchange rate in deciding, or ameliorating, uncompetitive-ness? When dealing with the exchange rate, will he say what his policy is for exchange rates, and whether his Department has a view about holding them up or anything of that kind?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend came into the Chamber on time, and that he will realise that the House is debating low pay. In debating low pay, we are concerned with wages also. The question that I put to my hon. Friend is a simple one. We are arguing about whether we should add problems of the exchange rate to the problems that are caused by excessive wage demands. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss the question of exchange rates, there are many opportunities in the House to do so. However, this does not avoid the real issue, namely, why should one add to those problems the problems that arise from excessive wage rates?
  Low pay is, and must be, linked with lack of skills. That is why the Government have brought training to the top of the list of priorities. It is interesting that the Opposition have made no mention in the motion of

  283
  training. They have not thought it worthwhile even to attack the Government's training record. The word "training" does not appear. If Opposition Members can talk about low pay without talking about training, it shows that they do not know much about the reason for low pay. One of the reasons for it is a lack of skills to sell. Unless those skills can be improved, and there is training towards such improvement, pay cannot be increased. The most remarkable fact about the motion is that the Opposition purport to deal with low pay without any reference to training.
  The fundamental characteristic common to almost all cases of low pay is the relatively low degree of skill that individuals have to offer. Training must, therefore, play a crucial part in enabling individuals to earn more. That has always been true, but it is the more so when rapid technological change reduces the traditional opportunities for the unskilled. If we are to meet the needs of the low paid, we must ensure the improvement and extension of training opportunities to which the Government are committed. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for impartial onlookers to ask themselves whether the Opposition are serious about low pay when the motion contains not one word about training, about skill improvement, or about the needs of the young who have less than adequate educational qualification. That is why the Government amendment specifically raises the question of training, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible for the Manpower Services Commission will be winding up the debate.
  The Government's recent White Paper sets out what we have achieved, and how far there is still to go. The new youth training scheme launched last year to provide school leavers with basic training for work is proving itself to be a great success, despite the opposition of Opposition Members.
  Ms. Clare Short: That is untrue.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady says that it is untrue. I suggest that the hon. Lady talks to those who are on training schemes; and she should be ashamed at the way she has stopped people getting on to youth training schemes. The record of the hon. Lady in this matter is disgraceful. Training for work is proving itself to be a great success. The guarantee to all unemployed minimum age leavers of the offer of a suitable—
  Ms. Clare Short: Long before the Minister had ever heard of training for young people I was arguing for its expansion. We all had great hopes that we would create from the youth opportunities programme a better and finer training system, but because of the Government's commitment to cutting wage levels and using training schemes to cut young people's wages that opportunity has been destroyed. That is what I oppose, and that is why the Government's rotten training scheme is not working.
  Mr. Gummer: All that the hon. Lady has said shows just how wrong she is, and how much harm she and her kind are doing to the young people of this country.
  The scheme provides young people with a real chance of getting a sound footing on the earnings ladder—a
  284
  step which becomes more difficult as the pace of technological change quickens and skill requirements constantly increase.
  In other areas, too, our training policies will open up new opportunities. In the reform of apprenticeship we are seeking to get rid of old fashioned age restrictions and time serving, so that a much broader range of people can obtain training in occupational skills. Our adult training strategy will ensure that many more people, both employed and unemployed, can be trained under the MSC's programmes.
  So training is a vital element in our approach to working with the market to improve levels of pay. It must be seen as an investment, in which employers and trainees are prepared to forgo short-term gains for longer term benefits. Here, as elsewhere, that is the essence of our approach.
  In the amendment that I propose we state—and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East mentioned it—that this House recognises
  "that the number of people who have a job will depend directly on the levels of pay received by those in work."
  I listened with considerable care to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I noted that he said that those words were gobbledegook, and spoke about another piece of evasion from the Government, the search for some convenient scapegoat and about how the amendment revealed the confused state of Government economic policy. I was very interested to know that.
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that there is no connection between wage levels and unemployment? Has he discovered an economic law that exempts from the influence of supply and demand all those on less than average earnings? If so, and he thinks that it reveals the confused state of Government economic policy, he has achieved something that eluded the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. For the right hon. Member for Leeds, East made the position absolutely clear. He said:
  "the number of people who have a job will depend directly on the level of pay received by those in work." [Official Report, 6 April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 271.]
  Those are the words of the right hon. Gentleman and they were true. If they were true when he uttered them as Chancellor of the Exchequer, why does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East now tell us that that is gobbledegook, another piece of evasion and that it reveals the confused state of the Government's economic policy?
  Mr. Skinner: Because it lost us the election.
  Mr. Gummer: What a very interesting revelation! It appears that the policies change not because they are right or wrong, correct or incorrect, but because they win or lose elections. If we care about unemployment and believe that we must use every effective method to reduce it, and to find permanent and real jobs for our people, we must be prepared to look at all the factors that affect employment. If that is our aim, we would be deceiving ourselves not to face squarely the problems posed by wages councils.
  I shall answer the points that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East put to me and I hope that he is prepared to listen to my argument. On the one hand, those wages councils were set up, and are continued, in order to protect those whom we believe to be most

  285
  vulnerable and most likely to receive low pay. We do not disagree about that. We both agree with Winston Churchill's comments in 1909 on that point. The reason for their existence is a thoroughly good one and the purpose behind their creation wholly laudable. But the other side of the coin is that if the operation of such councils leads to more unemployment—I say "if—and if it leads to fewer jobs and less opportunities, it would be quite wrong for any Government concerned about unemployment not to consider carefully the way in which those wages councils work.
  It is only in the past few days that we have heard of two wages councils — [Interruption.] If hon. Members listened they would see that there was a clear argument to be made and that they must answer it instead of trying to caterwaul it away. The fact is that it is only in the past few days that we have heard of two wages councils that seem to want to place the minimum rate of 17-year-olds at a level that would exclude many employers from being able to benefit from the young workers scheme. The narrow wage differentials between young people and their skilled and experienced counterparts may mean that there are fewer jobs available for the young. The operation of a number of wages councils is such that a Government would be failing in their duty if they were not clearly willing to look with a fresh eye at the system.
  That is why I am not willing to give an undertaking to the House that the Government will take no notice of any argument that links some of the increase of unemployment to the operation of wages councils. It is our job to look at this matter most carefully, and to see how best to improve the prospect of jobs for the people of Britain. For the present, we are constrained by the ILO convention, and there are therefore clear restrictions on what can be done. However, in the meantime the wages inspectorate will continue to act as it has always acted to enforce the law and to uphold the system that we have. This Government utterly repudiate the suggestions that we should, in a hole-in-the-corner way, make the wages inspectorate turn a blind eye to the decisions of wages councils. That would be to ignore the law, and this Government are here to uphold the law and nobody will make any difference to that.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East told us about the cuts in the wages councils, but I should point out that we are inspecting the same sort of 10 per cent. of the companies covered as were inspected throughout most of the period of the previous Labour Government. So do not let us overdo the cuts that we have had. Apart from the year in which the Labour Government pushed the figure up to 13 per cent., the record is pretty similar. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should check those facts. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way. It is only fair that he should hear the whole argument, because I may say something that is even more upsetting to him.
  We will look with a most searching eye into the operation of the wages councils and examine fairly—not ignoring the facts or refusing to face them—whether their existence and operation increase unemployment. If that turns out to be true, it would be a dereliction of duty were the Government to continue the system merely because we have always had it and merely because Winston Churchill proposed it in 1909.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: What wage level was proposed for the 17-year-olds that was so high that the Minister thought that it should be reduced? Is there any shred of evidence to show that by cutting that wage rate more jobs would be created?
  Mr. Gummer: I made it perfectly clear that the wages councils would be affected only if we thought that we had that evidence, and it was clear that a change should be made. I have made that point clear. There is no official statement of what wage levels are being contemplated. I am saying only that we understand that the wage levels might well have the effect that I mentioned. No doubt we shall see when they are given.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend turn a searching eye or the effect of wages councils on the employment of married women, particularly in the retail and grocery trade?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has pointed to one of the areas in which many people suggest that employment opportunities are reduced by the activities of wages councils. However, many others put the opposite view, and it is our job to make a sensible decision on the facts. The difference between the two sides of the House is that we are seeking to solve the problems on the facts, and the Opposition are seeking to hide them beneath their prejudices.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and his hon. Friends are right to ask the House to consider the problems of low pay. I hope that before the debate is concluded I shall have received an answer to a question that I put earlier. If it was true for the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that the level of wages has an effect on the level of employment, what has happended in the meantime to change that, and how can the Opposition's present view be squared with that of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Both sides of the House are right to concentrate attention upon the particular difficulties which arise for families whose income means that they are not able to afford what their neighbours can afford. However, the Government are also right to make it clear that the improvement in the standards of living of those who are poorly paid in our community depends crucially upon the general improvement of our economic performance. That itself depends upon our competitiveness, upon the reduction of inflation not only in absolute terms but in relative terms, upon the improvement of productivity, upon the extension of training, and upon the innovative and entrepreneurial skills of our people.
  The poor are not made richer by driving brains and skill abroad. Low pay is not improved by stagnating and confining the economy. No hope is held out for those who earn least by threatening to attack those whose high earnings create jobs. I believe that this House should have enough concern for those whose pay is low to throw out this negative and dispiriting motion and make instead the Government's positive and creative amendment the basis for our debate.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: The Minister asked us to accept his and his party's sincerity on the subject. After hearing him, I do not think anyone on this side of the House can believe that his party is sincere

  287
  about it. If he could not have got a better brief from his civil servants, I am surprised that he, as the chairman of the Conservative party, could not have got a better one from Central Office. I had high hopes of him because I have heard him make a brilliant speech; admittedly, it was on the Adjournment at four o'clock in the morning to a very thin House on the riveting subject of the problems of pig disease and pseudo-rabies in his constituency. I hoped for a better response from him today to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. David Winnick: Is it not possible that the hon. Gentleman is so busy intimidating the BBC that he has not got time to read briefs on this subject?
  Mr. Pendry: I am sure that we can all give explanations for his poor response. Basically, it is because he cannot answer the case made so eloquently by the Labour Front Bench. For the Minister to bring in, of all things, the forecast by the Confederation of British Industry is absolutely amazing. Its forecasts are as unreliable as the performances of my team, Derby County, on Saturday afternoons, but at least there is a chance that Derby County will escape relegation.
  Clearly the Minister has not got a good case. When we last debated this subject it was also on an Opposition initiative, as it is today. Then the motion was moved by Arthur Bottomley, who is now in the other place where I am sure he will continue to show his concern for the low-paid. On that occasion I made a contribution and I then honestly thought that when we next debated the chronic problem of low pay there would at least have been a marginal improvement. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East has said, exactly the opposite is the case. The low-paid have become lower paid because of the Government's policies over the last 12 months or so.
  I declare my interest in speaking in the debate. It is twofold. First, I am chairman, as some hon. Members already know, of the parliamentary group sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. NUPE has in membership hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers and, in particular, 470,000 female workers who, almost by definition because they are in the public sector, are low paid. My second important reason for wishing to see the motion carried is that in my constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde, which falls within the Tameside district of Greater Manchester, we have our fair share of low wage earners.
  The most recent survey reveals some shocking discrepancies. Set against a notional weekly earnings average of £137·06 for men and £83 for women, the average Tameside wage earner receives only £73·17 per week. The percentage of those earning less than £90 per week is as high as 74·5, with 82 per cent. earning less than £100 per week. One quarter of full-time adult workers have a weekly wage of less than £56·20. Therefore, by any standards I represent a constituency of low wage earners who demand and deserve a better deal than they are getting from the Government. They will be bitterly disappointed by what the Minister has said.
  The picture nationally may not be quite as bleak as that in my constituency but none the less it is dismal. There can be little doubt that since 1979 the problems of the low-paid
  288
  have increased alarmingly. In 1979 one tenth of male manual workers were classifed as low paid. By 1983 the proportion had jumped to one sixth. For female workers the figures are even more disturbing. In 1979 two thirds were low paid. By 1983 that had risen to three quarters; with the Government policies that are being pursued, the situation in 1984 must get worse.
  In the debate last March I raised the absurdity of the fines levied on those who pay wages below wages council standards. The average fine of about £100 is absurd. The chance of these bucket shop employers being caught and having to pay these miserly fines is remote and is becoming more remote by the day. Firms engaged in paying illegal wages may be visited once every 14 years. Only seven employers out of more than 4,000 found to be underpaying their employees have ever been prosecuted. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that illegal payments have increased alarmingly since 1979.
  What kind of Government can cut the number of wages council inspectors by one third, leaving only 119 to cover the whole country? While I am on that point, what kind of Government can cut the number of health and safety inspectors by 145, leaving the remainder to do an almost impossible task? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers run a greater risk of industrial accident and will be subjected to illegal low payments as a direct result of Government policies.
  That is a twin indictment of those policies, illustrated graphically by the tragic incident that cost the lives of five low-paid women workers in an east end sweat shop last October. The owner of the Metawear clothing factory in Tower Hamlets was quoted in The Observer of 29 January as saying:
  "If a fire started there is no way out. A proper exit would cost £4,000."
  The Observer went on to say:
  "Because of the recession, jobs are scarce, wages are very low, with little union representation there is little chance of conditions improving."
  What response did we get from this compassionate Government when that happened? We got no response at all. We certainly did not get anything from our Prime Minister, who talks about her compassion for society. I agree with the Prime Minister that George Orwell did get it wrong: 1984 is not the year of Big Brother; in this country it is the year of Big Sister. The right hon. Lady will not be happy until wages councils, health and safety executives, metropolitan counties and many other bodies go. Not even in wartime Britain did we have so much centralisation and bureaucratic control as we have under the present Government.
  I wear my NUPE hat firmly as I come to the problems of low pay as it affects the vital service of the National Health Service, which has proved to be most unsafe in this Government's hands. This year, NHS ancillary staff have fallen behind even the minimum wage rates for ancillary staff as laid down by the wages councils, which are supposed to provide a safety net for groups of workers who are among the worst paid in the economy and who have no other protection.
  Consider the position of catering staff in the NHS. The wages council's minimum rate for, for example, waiters and waitresses is £64·41 for a 39 hour week, yet catering assistants in the NHS are paid even less. Because of the time, I will not weary the House by quoting many figures, though I am tempted to do so for laundry and cleaning

  289
  staff, who have no wages council to cover them. ACAS has pleaded for a wages council for them, as they are among the lowest paid in the country.
  This is an area in which the Government will let loose their friends in the private sector, and we know the record of private contractors. They have not shown themselves reluctant to attack the wages and working conditions of their employees. We are, therefore, likely to see an alarming deterioration in the standards that already exist in the NHS for the people about whom I am speaking.
  In that connection, we are aware what happened with Pritchards, the services group which was eventually sacked by the authorities in Wandsworth for amassing penalties of about £138,000. Many other such examples could be cited. Throughout the country, cowboy contractors are depressing wages even lower in a desperate attempt to make money at the expense of the public, aided and abetted by this Tory Adminstration, who have abolished the fair wages law so that the pathetically low wages that have existed in some industries can be undercut still further. I will not continue with that argument, except to refer Conservative Members to two excellent publications, "Fighting Privatisation: The Struggle for Wandsworth" and "Public Service Action."
  Mr. Winnick: They are not listening.
  Mr. Pendry: I had hoped that at least the Minister would listen to me.
  Mr. Winnick: They do not want to hear a word of it.
  Mr. Pendry: They did not listen to the debate that we had last March and they have not been listening to the continuing debate that has been going on throughout the country, in the trade union movement and beyond, about this whole problem.
  Mr. Winnick: They do not care.
  Mr. Pendry: Perhaps as a result of this barrage, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the Government Front Bench will show some concern.
  Mr. Winnick: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Pendry: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will continue with my speech, and perhaps he will have an opportunity to make his own speech. I appreciate his concern, because he knows that what I am saying is correct. Conservative Members should heed what we are saying in this debate.
  Another measure of how low pay in the National Health Service among ancillary staff is measured was referred to by the Minister, and that is the social security system, which sets levels of benefit that are considered to be the minimum necessary to sustain the average family. It has been calculated that a person at work needs nearly £100 in gross weekly pay to match the meagre poverty level income, yet over one third, 36·9 per cent., of adult male full-time workers, and about three quarters, 75·7 per cent., of adult female full-time workers covered by the ancillary staffs council fall below this poverty line.
  That leads on to the question of women workers generally. Those entitled to equal pay have received short shrift from this Government, who have reluctantly reintroduced equal pay for work of equal value provisions, but revealed their true colours recently when the Sex Equality Bill was defeated as a result of massive Whipping by the Government.
  290
  I remind the House of some words that were used by the present Prime Minister in 1970, when she was a relatively lowly figure in the Conservative party. As the hon. Member for Finchley, she said on the Second Reading of what was then the Equal Pay Bill:
  "So many people have supported the idea of equal pay for so long that one wonders at the continuing inequality of payment between men and women. I believe that the Bill will lead to better pay for many jobs, and I support it as another step in the equal pay story." — [Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1027.]
  Those were the days when she was saying, among other things, that there would never be a woman Prime Minister in her lifetime. Unfortunately, she got that prediction horribly wrong. It is appropriate, as we debate the motion, to remember the words that the right hon. Lady used on that occasion and to remind her of them time and again because when she uttered them she had no idea that she would occupy the office that she now holds.
  Low pay is still the greatest problem facing most working women. A NUPE survey carried out between April and November of last year showed that the average man's wage went up from £167·50 to £174·40 and that the average woman's wage rose from £108·80 to £113·30. I have quoted figures for the so-called "women's jobs" in the Health Service — for example, in cleaning and catering—where the pay on average—at say £65 a week —falls well below those norms. It is about time that the House recognised that the work of these women must be valued more highly and paid for accordingly.
  No worker, male of female, should earn less than the Government's poverty level o £100 a week. The case for a minumum wage, which would go a long way towards helping women and men at the bottom of the pay table, is overwhelming. I hope that the debate will bring home to the Government that enough is enough. Nationally and internationally the Government should recognise their obligations to the appropriate ILO conventions and their commitments to the Council of Europe, but most of all they must meet the commitments into which they entered to the British people at the last two general elections. The workers of Britain look to the Government to guarantee their right to earn a decent wage in safe conditions of work. It is about time that the Government lived up to their obligations to the people.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Eric Cockeram: We are debating the problems of low pay, which is a relative term and which means different things to different people. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) gave as his definition of people on low pay those who were at the bottom average 10 per cent. of the wages scale. If that be the definition, the problem is insoluble because there will always be a bottom 10 per cent.
  It is, however, a relative term, and as the motion refers to wages councils, I shall concentrate on the problem of wages councils as they affect youths and school leavers, because all hon. Members must be worried in particular about the problem of unemployed school leavers.
  In 1945, at the end of the war, the wages council rates in Britain for school leavers were fixed at about 38 per cent. of the adult wages set by those same wages councils. That gave a youth the opportunity roughly to treble his wages during his working life, ignoring inflation. By international standards, that was a narrowish band. In

  291
  Switzerland today, the average school leaver's wage is about one-sixth of the adult wage. That gives them an opportunity to multiply their income sixfold — again ignoring inflation—during their working life. However, in this country the youth wage rate in 1945 was 38 per cent. of the adult rate.
  Ms. Clare ShortWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cockeram: I will give way when I have developed my theme.
  It is a feature of the wages councils that the percentage rate for youths has risen faster than rates for adults set by the same wages councils. Today the starting wage for school leavers in wages council industries is, on average, 62 per cent. of the adult wage.
  Ms. Short: For some time now there have been frequent suggestions that the cause of high youth unemployment is high youth wages. We frequently hear that view repeated from political platforms. However, all the research evidence shows that it is false.
  The famous Makeham study, commissioned by the Department of Employment, showed that there is no explanation in youth wage rates for the level of unemployment in Britain. The Department of Employment was so anxious to prove that those findings were false that it recently commissioned another study. However, it has failed again. The claim that youth wages are part of the explanation for youth unemployment is false, and has been proved false over and over again by the most authoritative studies.
  Mr. Cockeram: There have been many contradictory studies on this issue. I should like to ask the hon. Lady whether, when she goes shopping, the price of the commodity that she wishes to purchase is not a salient feature of her decision whether or not to purchase it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cockeram: No, I am replying to the question put by the hon. Lady. Would she not probably look elsewhere to try to find a commodity at a lower price?
  Wages are a principal factor in the cost of production. To suggest that wages do not play a part in the ultimate price of the finished product that the hon. Lady might buy in the shops is fallacious in the extreme, and youth wages are a component part of that cost.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the existence of a number of contradictory studies. Could he identify one of them for us?
  Mr. Cockeram: There have been a number of studies. If I had realised that the hon. Lady would make that point I would have brought them with me.
  When the hon. Gentleman is considering whether to make a purchase, I am sure that the price of the commodity is a salient feature in his decision, too.
  Youth wages have risen from 38 per cent. of the adult minimum wage after the war to 62 per cent. today. Today, employers are deliberately cutting back on the number of youths whom they employ, and on their training schemes, because of the cost of employing those youths. To that 62 per cent. of the adult wage we have to add the costs of training the youths and of the management time devoted
  292
  to running training schemes. It then becomes apparent that school leavers cost much more than 62 per cent. of the adult wage.
  Two large firms in my constituency have closed down their apprenticeship training schemes because they can no longer afford to run them and pay current wage rates. Farmers in my constituency, too, are constantly finding that wage costs are such that it pays them to become more capital-intensive and mechanised rather than to employ school leavers. I do not dispute the fact that Labour Members, like myself, are concerned about unemployment among youths. However, they cannot get away from the fact that the cost of employing those youths influences the employer's decision whether or not to take them on.
  Wages councils cover some 3 million employees in this country—roughly one seventh or one eighth of the total. Those employees are mostly in the unskilled trades in which many school leavers, particularly in the urban areas, seek their first jobs. The Government should address themselves to the problem of wage rates for juveniles in those wages council trades. Some employers in urban areas today would willingly take on a group of youths and put six or seven £5 notes into their hip pockets on a Friday night. That wage would be below the level of income tax, and there would be no deductions. I come from Merseyside, and I know youths who would willingly work for that sum. They would have training and experience and an opportunity. However, an employer who takes on any youth at that rate in a wages council industry is breaking the law, and so he does not do so. Wages councils are contributing to unemployment among youths in the trades in which they are operative. I hope that in due course the Government will allow employers to take on youths for training at an economic rate. If they do so, they will make a contribution to solving the problem of unemployment among our youths.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon: Anybody who has ploughed through the volumes of statistics on low pay and has examined regional pay will have noted that my dear home county of Cornwall has had, and is likely to continue to have, the dubious distinction of having by far the lowest average wages in Great Britain. I have lived with this subject for a long time. It is of desperate importance in my part of the world, as it is throughout the length and breadth of our country.
  The Government's current stance on this matter is quite unbelievable and harsh, and can only make the situation worse for large numbers of extremely vulnerable people. However, the solutions are not easy or overwhelmingly obvious. The average male wage in this country at the moment is £167·50, and one must assume that that is the average wage that the British economy can stand. Half the male workers are paid less than £150 a week. If we wish to increase the wealth of a group of employees relative to the economy at any one precise moment, we must decide which group of employees within the economy is to be worse off. Unless we do that, we shall increase the average, and to do that at any time must have other undesirable effects on the economy.
  The figure of £167·50 is a reflection of Britain's economic position. We could have a long debate on the reason why we are where we are. When I visit other European neighbours, I do not need any statistics or calculations to show me that they are obviously better off.

  293
  The wealth is there to be seen. The solution is not as simple as has been suggested from the Labour Front Bench. Apparently it was argued that all that is necessary is to increase the wages of one group of workers, and the problems will dissolve.
  That is not argued by a large number of people, but I recall discussing the value of incomes policy with the president of the National Union of Mineworkers a few years ago and eventually being reduced to challenging Mr. Scargill to say whether he believed that the immediate doubling of every person's income would necessarily lead to an increase in prices. To resounding cheers from the militants in the back row, he replied "No." It is difficult to know where to start a discussion with someone who takes that view of economics. My education at least taught me to add up.
  There has been a period of lack of investment with, at times, almost hysterical opposition to technology and productivity. It is tempting to enter into a discussion about that, but it is not the main issue. The issue of the day is whether, within the economy that we have, we can do more to protect the lowest paid or whether we have to do less. It is my firm view that we should at least maintain the protection that exists and, indeed, try to extend it.
  At present, protection for the low-paid in this country amounts to very little more than the wages councils. I believe that those councils should be maintained and extended to other areas of work and that greater effort should be made to enforce the pay rates. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram). If he was saying, as the Minister almost said, that the only real criticism of wages councils was the ratio of youth pay to adult pay, I would rather see that problem put right—if it is a problem, and there seems to be some evidence that it may be—than used as an excuse to scrap the whole system of wages council protection. There are undoubtedly very many people in this country whose pathetic wage rates are supported by the wages councils, and a significant number of them would be paid even less if the councils were abolished. The percentage of such people in my county is probably higher than anywhere else.
  The various criteria produce a figure of about £100 per week as constituting low pay. That seems a reasonable figure to start from. There is clear evidence that some 3,500,000 adults in this country earn less than that, many of them a great deal less. Rather than pretending that it would be possible to bring every adult wage above £100 per week, I would support legislation at least to raise the wages of the most vulnerable in our society. The statistics show that in the London borough of Barnet 10 per cent. of male workers earn less than £93 per week. In Hackney 10 per cent. earn less than £89 per week. In East Anglia, 10 per cent. earn less than £92 or £93 per week and in Cornwall 10 per cent. earn less than £82 per week. The figures for women workers are even worse. A number of categories are at the rock bottom of what any of us could consider to be civilised wages. I believe that the Government have a responsibility at least to maintain the protection that now exists for those people and, if possible, to extend it and gradually to increase their pay in real terms.
  It has been suggested that the situation is getting worse. Such statistical evidence as I have found bears that out. Certainly, the effect of legislation in the past few years has inclined in that direction. The Government have
  294
  deliberately skewed the tax system to affect the low-paid more than the high-paid. For a family of four with two thirds of the national average wage the tax burden has increased by 18 per cent. since the Government came to office whereas for those on 10 times the national average wage the burden has been reduced by 22 per cent. In terms of sheer justice and civilised behaviour, that does not seem a sensible way to go about things.
  There is now the ludicrous situation in which anyone with children, who is paid between £60 and £100 per week, is not better off with each pay rise and may even be worse off. The highest marginal rate of tax now applies to people earning £70, £80 or £90 per week. It would be embarrassing to reveal my sources, but I have evidence that there is now a trend for employers to tell employees with families that they can claim family income supplement, rent rebate and rate rebate and that the employers will drop them a tenner on Saturday if they agree to appallingly low wage rates. That is the reality and it is increasingly prevalent in my county. I cannot reveal the sources of my information as it comes from constituents who complain to me about the practice and ask what they can do about it. I say that they can report it but I have to admit that the net effect of that is likely to be the loss of the job that they have, at which point they leave my surgery a little wiser but no better off. I fear that that practice will increase so long as we have ludicrous marginal tax rates as high as 100 per cent.
  One answer to the problem must be to extend wages councils into areas not currently covered in terms of adult workers. I hope that the Government will give us at least one clear answer today. What do they intend to do about this? The Conservative election manifesto said something to the effect that nobody would be unable to take work due to wages legislation. At the time I was not sure what that meant and it seems that the Minister did not know either. One can only conclude that the Government have yet to make up their mind whether to abolish the wages councils. I suspect, however, that there has been a gradual shift of view in the Government, which I welcome. It has become clear that total abolition of all wages councils will make the poorest members of our society even worse off.
  I take the view—I sometimes suspect that it is shared by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) — that one of the main responsibilities of the House to the people, one of the main obligations of politicians and one of the main tests of a civilised Government, is whether the weakest and most vulnerable members of society are protected. I go further. We have a duty to protect the weak and to control the strong. The strong generally do not need much protection, being more than able to look after themselves. Are the Government prepared to protect the lowest paid people in the land? The Minister will see from the statistics that those people are not in the city areas, which elect Labour Members, but in rural areas such as Lincolnshire., Cornwall, Herefordshire and the Scottish border areas. If the Minister abolishes wages councils, people in areas represented by his own political colleagues will be even more vulnerable. One thinks of the lady looking for a job in the village shop or the man in his twenties trying to raise a family and with only his own labour to offer. Those people will be paid even less than their present rates, which all too often are deplorable.
  I do not believe we can change to a system in which the minimum wage is two thirds of the average. What we

  295
  assume to be Government policy will, if it is not changed, ensure that even more adult workers will earn from £50 to £70 for a full week's work. If the Government do not believe that that is possible, I can quote non-wages council workers in my area whose top line, before the taxman cometh—not their take-home pay—is about £45 to £50 a week. I recognise this country's economic difficulties; it is lunacy to believe that we shall overcome the problem without an overall pay policy—of which I am openly in favour.
  I agree with the Government that simply paying people more will create unacceptable economic difficulties, but the solution cannot be to pay even less to those whose pay is already abysmal. I know that the Minister is a Christian man. Does he want to be party to legislation that increases the number of family men earning less than £75 a week? That is what the abolition of wages councils means; that is what the Government will achieve by this lunacy.
  By all means let us investigate the ratio of youth wages to adult pay, if that is what the Government think is wrong with wages councils. But abolishing the fabric of the councils would be the most appalling scandal, the most outrageous abrogation of responsibility for those at the bottom of society, that I have seen in my time as a Member of Parliament.
  I ask the Minister to use his influence in the Government forthwith to prevent the lunacy of this apparently serious proposal. In fact, I can see no reason why he cannot allow his hon. Friend to tell us tonight that some minimum wages protection is Government policy and that it will be maintained.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). Contrary to what many hon. Members believe, people in the Bournemouth area do not enjoy high wages, because, like many of the hon. Member's constituents, 15,000 of them depend mainly on tourism.
  The suggestion that Bournemouth is not a rich town may cause incredulity. Those who visit Bournemouth for holidays or conferences regard it as one of the country's most attractive resorts, with high-class shopping, the largest number of hotel beds outside London, and seven miles of clean beaches. It has one of the most attractive hinterlands that any resort could wish for in Hardy's Dorset and the New Forest. It has an exceptional climate and superb conference and exhibition facilities, which will shortly be enhanced by the opening of a new international conference centre, where, I understand, major political parties are planning to hold their conferences.
  If that sounds like a commercial for my constituency, it is meant to be—not least in the interests of the low-paid within it. But behind that facade of prosperity are many people who retired to Bournemouth on low incomes and who now find it impossible to make ends meet because inflation has eroded the value of their savings and thus their incomes. They bless the Government for bringing down inflation, and keeping it down, unlike the Labour Government.
  I stress that the people in my area on low incomes may be worse off than those in many other areas, because it appears to experience one of the country's highest costs of living. I say "appears to experience" because that is the
  296
  impression that one gains from reading the weekly shopping basket feature in the Daily Telegraph, in which prices of basic food items are compared in about 12 towns and cities throughout the country. Each week since last November Bournemouth has headed the list. Last week the price stood at £19·20, which is 5 per cent. more than the average price of the same items bought in Cardiff, Ipswich, Belfast, Leeds and Liverpool. In this case, unusually for it, the Daily Telegraph gives a false impression because it does no justice to the competitive prices—I know from my own experience, living in the constituency—that are charged in smaller shops in the outlying areas away from the town centre supermarkets, which is where I suspect that the surveys are carried out. Nevertheless, many of my constituents are clobbered both ways by low pay and high living costs.
  Regrettably, low pay has long been associated with the tourist industry and businesses that depend upon it. That is because in the past jobs in hotels and catering have attracted people with few skills and qualifications, so that the competition for those jobs is great. Because of the seasonal nature of the business, many jobs are only temporary, which depresses wage levels further. A senior wage inspector for the south-west region to whom I spoke yesterday told me that he received over 1,000 complaints a year from hotel workers who were concerned at receiving low pay or not receiving their holiday pay entitlement. He told me that there were more complaints from our region in the south-west than from any other region. For example, an employee in a hotel who does not come into contact with customers receives £69 a week for a 40-hour week, while his colleague who comes into contact with customers receives £59 a week, £10 less, because it is expected that he will receive tips.
  The concept of tips is a dimension in the determination of pay levels that should have ceased a long time ago. I hope that the tourist industry will face up to that as soon as possible, particularly now that there is every reason to believe that it has one of the brightest futures of any industry. Tourism has long been one of the country's most successful industries, which, in my view, successive Governments have failed to recognise in terms of practical support. The industry will have a healthier future given the great prosperity and leisure time that we are all promised by the technological revolution. Therefore, in the tourist industry there will be rewards for those who manage efficiently, market imaginatively and attract those with the right skills and qualifications. It should no longer be associated with low pay in future.
  The motion refers to wages councils. In the past unions and employees in the tourist industry looked to them to improve pay and for protection from unscrupulous employers. Of the total number of establishments covered by wages councils—about 391,000—more than three quarters are directly or indirectly associated with catering, residential or retailing businesses. It may be that historically, but for wages councils, pay would be even lower.
  However, by no stretch of the imagination can one seriously equate the pay conditions that motivated Winston Churchill to establish the wages councils when he was a Minister in the Liberal Government almost three quarters of a century ago with pay conditions today. The Government must face up to the reality that wages councils have outlived their usefulness and help to create higher

  297
  unemployment rather than higher pay. I was delighted to hear that the Government are now prepared to face up to this and are reviewing the workings of wages councils.
  Mr. John Evans: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He is arguing that the wages councils have outlived their usefulness. A moment ago he said that a wages council inspector to whom he had spoken recently said that last year he had received more than 1,000 complaints from workers about not receiving their proper remuneration. If the wages councils are abolished, to whom will those workers turn?
  Mr. Atkinson: I shall cover that later in my speech, and will refer to complaints that I have received from employers who tell me that the effect of wages councils is to reduce the number of people that they can afford to employ.
  We cannot escape from the evidence that I and many of my colleagues have received. It is right that we should now question why 100 countries have not signed the ILO convention, including Australia, Canada, West Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan.
  I cannot believe that any hon. Member has not received complaints from constituents who are retailers or small businessmen and whose ability to manage efficiently and profitability has been affected by wages councils' decisions. From my own experience, I know that they object strongly to the fact that such decisions become enforceable in law and that disregard by them, even with the consent of the employee, is a criminal offence.
  Many people thought that the attitude of the Conservative Government, and, indeed, of the last Labour Government in their latter days, was against statutory wage controls. After 1970, I understood that never again would a Labour Government introduce compulsory wage controls, and that pledge was repeated in 1979. I also understood that after 1974 the Conservative party said that never again would it contemplate compulsory wage controls. Yet such controls are alive and kicking in the form of wages councils.
  Many employers complain that the continued annual increase in minimum rates of pay makes it impossible to employ the number of staff required for the efficient operation of their businesses. Even more aggravating is the fact that they have no control over the rates that economically they can pay to make a profit. These are settled by councils which cover the whole country, and they cannot possibly take into account the local conditions and problems that affect local profitability.
  Ms. Clare Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to represent the interests of all his constituents. Has he talked to any of his constituents who are protected by the wages councils? Has he asked whether they resent statutory force being given to the wages councils? Surely the employers' view is only one side of the argument. The hon. Gentlemen must have other constituents who need protection. Has he anything to say about them?
  Mr. Atkinson: Many of my constituents are fearful for the future of their jobs simply because of the awards made by wages councils.
  Many employers also complain about the composition of the wages councils, in particular about the number of independent members. These independent members decide on the awards to be made when those representing
  298
  the employers and the employees cannot agree. I understand that in 1982 the 81 seats for the independent members of the 27 wages councils which then existed were held by only 39 people, 30 of whom were academics. Eighteen lecturers held 50 seats between them; five professors held eight posts; seven other academics held nine posts; and the other 14 posts were held by four barristers. From that breakdown, it is obvious that academics are the most dominant.
  I have nothing against academics, and I admit that I do not know any who are members of wages councils. However, it is reasonable to suggest that many of them will not have had employer experience, although all of them will have had employee experience.
  That breakdown also shows that many of these independent members sit on more than one council. Can they really act as truly independent judges in each case? Can they really be free of any influence of any judgment that they may have made about a wages increase that was fair in respect of other councils, given that particular circumstances may be completely different?
  The main complaint from employers is that wages councils have tended to grant awards that are ahead of the rate of inflation, and in so doing are helping to fuel inflation. The employers cannot take into account the cost of employing labour in relation to other costs. This was well summed up in a letter that I received last year from the proprietor of a popular bread and cake shop in my constituency. He wrote to the retail food and allied trades wages council:
  "A year ago you gave an increase in shop staff wages which we objected to most strongly and now you are proposing yet another.
  This is utter madness. Every reason we gave last year applies with even greater emphasis this year, trade is lower than last year, which was in turn lower than the previous year, bread sales continue to fall nationally. Average purchases per customer remain very low, meaning that sales staff have to be higher than they should be for the turnover done each day. Other costs over which we have no control such as Rates and Water Rates increase but in the present business climate any increase in prices would be suicidal. So where do you propose we raise the money to pay any increase at all, let alone the high level you propose?"
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: I will, after I have finished quoting this letter from an employer who dramatically describes the effect of wages council awards on his business and profitability. He continued:
  "We said last year that any increase given would be paid only by a reduction of hours so that we did not increase our wage bill … Last year we stood-off one male confectioner and now this year we have stood-off one more, this time a woman, and you may be assured that if you give even 1% more in this current round of pay bargaining then we can only pay it by a further reduction in staff. Thus far from putting more money into the pockets of employees, you are making some unemployed, whilst the lucky ones who remain in work only maintain the same income albeit for a few less hours. I repeat utter madness "
  Mr. Lewis: What wage rates were involved, and what profits was the cake shop making? In my experience, employees who are covered by wages council conditions are usually the lowest paid in the land. It would be interesting if we had an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he is not suggesting that wages should be further depressed.
  Mr. Atkinson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information that he requires because I do not have it in the letter from which I was reading. I suggest to him that low pay is better than no pay and no jobs.
  I shall refer to another letter which also illustrates the difficulties that employers have to face when they have wages council awards imposed upon them. The letter from which I am about to quote is from a social club-leisure centre whose main activity is bingo. The letter states:
  "We employ 15 full-timers and 50 part-timers and 20 of these employees must be awarded a 6·38 per cent. wage increase as per Wage Council. The inflation rate is now running at 4·5 per cent."—
  the letter was written at the end of 1983—
  "possibly rising to 5 per cent. and the Government policy towards Private Sector Workers is endeavouring to settle for a 3 per cent. rise in wages."
  The author has that wrong because that is the Government's policy towards the public sector. The letter continues:
  "This differential to me does not make sense.
  Our particular case, a small Independent Company, surviving but suffering from a severe cash flow problem, the effects from severe competition from major circuits, the present economic climate and ever rising overheads. We are trying to run an efficient business, with a will to survive and under the present conditions of employment have a contented staff and enforcing this unrealistic wage increase will cause discontent amongst other members of the staff, some with more responsibility, who are not affected by this compulsory rise and what is more, we can ill afford to meet this obligation.
  Can something be done to avoid this compulsory wage rise? Perhaps you may consider taking this matter up with the Secretary of State, using our company as an example, to get the Act rescinded to save other small concerns in the same predicament.
  I strongly recommend Wages Councils should be abolished as soon as possible so that small firms like ourselves, without union affiliation, can have the freedom of free collective bargaining with our employees, which would ultimately be beneficial to all concerned with full knowledge of the Company's present financial position."
  Those are just two example of many thousands throughout the country.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I recognise the arguments that the hon. Gentleman is advancing because I have had them put to me. A minuscule amount of justification may lie behind a few of them. The hon. Gentleman is submitting marginal arguments. He argues against a pay rise this year of 6 per cent. against inflation of 4 per cent., and he is using that as a reason for abolishing the whole caboodle. Does he want to remove from his Bournemouth hotel-working constituents the protection of a minimum rate of pay?
  Mr. Atkinson: That is not my position, which I shall explain in due course. I have quoted from part of the feedback of those who are struggling to survive in small businesses. They have a long-term future and they are trying to contain the problem that is imposed upon them by the awards of wages councils. The complaints which I have quoted are similar to those which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been receiving for a long time.
  They have been received also by a responsible organisation of which most hon. Members will be aware, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. About two years ago the federation produced a booklet entitled "Priced Out", which described the effect of wages councils awards on jobs. The federation had surveyed the problems faced by small businesses throughout the country in recent years as a result of the activities of wages councils. Following the survey and its
  300
  consideration of the information revealed by it, it produced some practical recommendations to which I hope my hon. Friend will give some consideration as part of his review of the workings of wages councils.
  The federation acknowledges that it might be useful—this answers the question of the hon. Member for Truro—
  "in some trades at least, to have a forum for collective bargaining, and the Wages Councils and Joint Industrial Councils may have some present role in this. Our recommendation, however, is that this bargaining should be done on a voluntary basis by individual employers and their staff, or by bodies set up and serviced by the employers and employees in the industries concerned—not by central Government."
  The federation is suggesting that
  "The Wages Councils in other words, should lose their statutory powes and privileges. The legal enforcement of minimum wages should be removed; the central government secretariat should be disbanded; and the inspectorate should be discontinued. The Secretary of State has the power to convert Wages Councils into Statutory Joint Industrial Councils, without enforcement powers, and this would be a useful first step."
  The federation recognises that whatever might be done as a consequence of denouncing the ILO convention will take time. It makes some practical recommendations for immediate changes of policy and, again, I hope that my hon. Friend will give consideration to them. It suggests that
  "Firm dates should be set down for Wages Council meetings, and a timetable for negotiations."
  It suggests that
  "under no circumstances should an award be backdated to any time before the order has been published and circulated to affected firms."
  It suggests that
  "Longer time periods are needed for consideration of proposed orders … a minimum of eight weeks to allow businessmen to digest the implications of the 'green papers' and to cover absence through holidays or sickness."
  It suggests that
  "When the final order is published, there should similarly be a delay to allow time for adjustment before it becomes effective."
  It suggests that the
  "Government should advise Wages Councils forcefully of the results of seasonal fluctuations in trade, which cause seasonal unemployment because of minimum wage laws."
  That is a problem that employers in my constituency experience as well as those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Truro. It suggests that account should be taken of the
  "hard effect which minimum wage regulations has on the smaller business … the difficulties caused in terms of unemployment and staff relations of the erosion in age differentials … the tendency of increases to remain above the general rate of increase in prices."
  It recommends immediate changes in existing policy and that
  "material published by Wages Councils should be simplified and should avoid the legalistic language which causes most of the problems. There should be more information given to employers and employees alike, such as who sits on each Wages Council, and how they are chosen, and so on. Other forms of communication from Wages Councils, such as the inspectorate's enquiry form, should be re-drafted. Much offence could be spared if representatives of independent businessmen were asked for an opinion about such communications before they were produced and distributed. Wages inspectors should be bound by a code of conduct, which should be freely available to employers. This will explain the rights and obligations of the employer, and will remind the wages inspector of how to make his enquiries most courteously, without embarrassing employers in front of staff or customers. The code should be agreed with the help of smaller business men."

  301
  We have been through this before with the conduct of VAT inspectors. I well remember raising on the Floor of the House about five years ago an instance in which a VAT inspector had interrogated a constituent of mine as part of an investigation to ascertain whether he was abusing his tax returns. He was a restaurateur, and I remember that the VAT inspector asked him how many peas he provided in each of the meals that he served—
  Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is straying from the subject of the debate into VAT inspectors. He is taking up valuable time that Opposition Members wish to have.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is straying from the subject, but it is true that he began speaking at 5.42 pm, and many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Atkinson: Thank you for your kindness, Mr. Speaker. I realise that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and that I have strayed a little in trying to illustrate the behaviour of Government inspectors when dealing with people who must run businesses.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the federation's suggestions about the effects and workings of wages councils are practical and should be considered now.
  I have every sympathy with the low-paid, but the answer does not lie in forcing employers to pay so-called minimum wages, nor does it lie in wages councils. It lies in the suggestions in the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister — low inflation, higher productivity, healthier profits and an improving economy. Above all, it lies in freedom for the wealth creators and the job creators to do just that—to create wealth and jobs. The sooner that wages councils are abolished in their present form, the better it will be for those who have a job and who wish to keep it, as well as for those who want a job. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), low pay is better than no pay. It can also lead to higher pay, and that is what the Government's economic strategy is about.
  6.12 pm
  Miss Betty Boothroyd: The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) gave us a colourful description of his constituency. It is in stark contrast to the black country towns that I represent. The hon. Gentleman talked about cake shops, which I would be the first to acknowledge are essential establishments, but I want to talk about sweat shops, which have no place in our society today. Therefore, I have no doubt that our views will vary, just as our constituencies contrast each other completely.
  I shall restrict my remarks to the west midlands, not least because I represent part of that area, which is the best possible reason, but also because that region has rapidly become one of the lowest paid in Britain. A decade ago it was acknowledged by all to be prosperous, with low unemployment and reasonably high earnings. However, during the past five years it has moved from affluence to having severe economic problems and widespread poverty.
  Unemployment in the west midlands is now well above the national average, and serious and intense problems of
  302
  low pay have developed in many industries which never knew it previously. Male workers, who were once at the top of the pay league, have suffered a major reduction in earnings—about 10 per cent —in relation to the national average. Women workers have experienced a similar sharp decline in earnings. Although more than half of all full-time working women are low-paid throughout this country the proportion of those on low pay in the west midlands is far higher than the national average.
  A number of influences have resulted in women occupying a disadvantaged position in the nation's labour force. The evidence for that — I shall not weary the House with it because I see that many hon. Members have it, as no doubt does the Minister — is in the new earnings survey and the material that has been sent to hon. Members by the Low Pay Unit. The material shows that women working in both the manual and non-manual sectors in the west midlands are especially disadvantaged, compared with their counterparts elsewhere, and that their average earnings are lower in that region than in any other part of Great Britain. Yet that is a region where, by tradition, women have gone out to work. It is a region where they used to occupy a high position in the pay league, but now they have dropped to two steps from the bottom. They are not quite at the bottom that was described by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—he has the distinction of representing the region at the bottom of the pay league—but the west midlands is only one step up from the pavement.
  I have no doubt that a crucially important factor in that is massively high unemployment, because I believe that there is a direct correlation between high unemployment and low wages. That factor cannot be overstated, and I know that my hon. Friends will certainly not understate it tonight.
  Coupled with rising unemployment and rising under-payment is the Government's attitude to the wages councils and the inspectorate. The Government are now weakening the machinery that enforces proper rates of pay. In recent times they have seen to it that there are insufficient inspectors to police what is taking place, and, although the inspectorate has the responsibility for ensuring that the standards set by wages councils are adhered to, the job has not been done properly. The west midlands has suffered, as has the rest of the country. During the past five years there has been a one third cut in staffing in the inspectorate. There are now only 10 inspectors in the region, with responsibility for policing 32,000 firms and about 250,000 workers. Those workers are covered by a wages council and are entitled to a minimum wage, yet many of them receive wages well below the legal minimum. That has happened because the overall level of surveillance has been reduced precisely at a time when under-payment is increasing.
  Out of those 32,000 firms, only 2,000 have been visited by an inspector. In more than a third of the establishments it was found that people were being paid below the legal minimum. One wonders what the position would be in human terms if there were enough inspectors to visit all the firms for which they are responsible. I think that I know what the answer would be on the evidence already available to us.
  I spent last weekend in my constituency. Only this morning I was there again. I was in a ward where one quarter of the working population are registered unemployed. I talked there to men who were looking for

  303
  jobs. I was told that one or two jobs were available at a weekly pay of between £50 and £60. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out that in the Government jobcentres in the west midlands jobs were being advertised below the minimum rate of pay.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The hon. Lady is probably aware that I recently replied to a question about jobcentres. The instructions to all the jobcentre personnel are exactly as she and I would like them to be.
  Miss Boothroyd: I am glad to know that, because many of us have been worried about what is happening in the west midlands.
  However, as I said earlier, there is a correlation between high unemployment and low pay. In Tipton, West Bromwich and Wednesbury—areas that I represent—11,000 people have lost their jobs since the Prime Minister took the keys of No. 10 Downing Street. I have no doubt that unemployment on such a scale has brought about what I might call a "bargain basement" for many employers. I acknowledge right away that there are many good employers, and I know many of them. They pay the proper rate, they have trade union organisation in their businesses, and the terms and the conditions of employment are properly implemented. However, with the mass unemployment that exists in my part of the black country, there are too many of the other kind of employers who take advantage of the situation. We have returned to the Victorian era, in that there is a rapid growth of sweat shops.
  I want to put three cases on record. In my constituency a secretary who is 21 years of age works 40 hours a week and receives £59 a week. She works overtime, and receives £70·75 for a 45-hour week. After the usual tax and national insurance, her take-home pay is £46 for a 45-hour week. The other case is that of a young man who is a plastics machinist. Again, he lives in my constituency. He receives £66·69 for a basic 39 hours. With a small bonus and regular overtime, his take-home pay after tax, insurance, and so on, is between £73 and £74 a week.
  I do not know those two people personally, but last Friday I met a woman in my surgery. She did not want to see me about her job, but like all women we chatted about other things. She told me that she was in full-time work. I was agreeably surprised, because few people in my area are. She works five days a week, from 8 in the morning till 6 at night, with an hour off for a midday meal. Curiosity got the better of me. I had cheek enough to ask her what she earned, and she told me that it was £30 a week. She was a machinist in a clothing industry. She sews men's and women's jackets. She is paid on a piecework basis. She admitted that she was not a very fast worker. She said that the fast workers earned £50 a week, that the average was £40, and she took home £30 a week. She works 45 hours for £30 a week, which I should imagine just about buys her groceries.
  I accept that many workers are unwilling to complain about being treated in that way. Nevertheless, they are being cheated, particularly women. Many of them are the breadwinners. They, in particular, worry about losing their
  304
  jobs. They worry about losing the meagre pay packet that helps to put the food on their tables and keep the roofs over their heads.
  The Government asked the Opposition earlier today for suggestions on how to deal with low pay. I always believed that in a parliamentary democracy the Government had the answers because they governed the country, and that they responded to the Opposition's motions. In this case, that is not so. However, I shall give the Minister one or two suggestions, because the depth and intensity of low pay in the west midlands demands an immediate investigation at the highest possible level. The Government should strengthen the wages councils. They should make them more effective, and extend them. That is something that the Government should tackle, and they should start tomorrow. Immediately if not sooner I hope that the Minister will restore and improve the staffing levels, particularly in the west midlands, so that there can be better methods of inspection.
  I shall not weary the House, but I want to digress for a moment to raise a brief point. It is, nevertheless, directly relevant to this debate. It concerns the Government's inactivity and neglect in another area. The Government constantly mouth their well-worn phrases about equality of opportunity for women, saying how they provide for the family, and provide part-time work for women and for married women who need and want to go out to work to support a family. There are many reasons today why women have to care for a family—I shall not go into them—and why they need and want to do part-time work. Part-time work is particularly suitable for many women, as the Government acknowledge. I hope, therefore, that in winding up the debate, the Minister will explain why the Government's job splitting scheme specifically excludes married women who are not registered for benefit.
  There is a further point. It relates to the EC directive on part-time work, which the Government failed to support. It was tabled as long ago as December 1982. The United Kingdom Government are firmly against the proposal. I understand that there may be a move within the EC to revive the proposal in the form of a Council recommendation, which would not be legislatively binding on member states, but it is unlikely that the United Kingdom Government will support it in an amended form. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about this EC directive on part-time workers. Will he explain why the Government, who say that they are so committed to women, working women and the family, remain opposed to such a move, why they continue to deny women the part-time work that they need?
  We have had a serious debate, in which we have heard some very good speeches. The Government must answer a challenge tonight. Over the past five years, they have developed a society in which they have denied 4 million people the basic right to work. At the same time, they have sentenced a further 6 million people, who have jobs, to live well below the poverty line. We want an answer tonight. We want the people of this country to know exactly what the Government are doing to improve their daily lives.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: As a vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau, as a solicitor in private practice, and as a west Yorkshire Member of Parliament,

  305
  in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) I can say that I am involved regularly in advising people in the industries concerned with the wages councils on a variety of problems that relate to them. I might say that I advise people on both sides of industry, both employers and employees. I have, therefore, to disclose both an interest in and some experience of the impact of the legislation with which the debate is concerned, especially as it affects industries in west Yorkshire in which my constituency is placed.
  I am anxious to find solutions to real problems rather than to engage in political, polemical arguments of a sterile nature. The motion's failing is that it treats low pay in isolation, when low pay and unemployment are interrelated.
  Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about what the motion says.
  Mr. Batiste: The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) should read the motion to understand the degree of isolation involved.
  A measure, however well meaning, intended to attack low pay or unemployment must be judged on its impact overall. Judgments must be made of its effectiveness in an overall context. I do not hesitate to say that my priority is the creation of real, long term, viable jobs. That is the ultimate priority that we must seek in the industrial context.
  I make no apology for saying that the achievement of that priority depends upon the nation's economic health. We now have more low-paid and unemployed than other western, industrialised societies, because for too long we have generated less wealth per head of population than our competitors.
  Mr. John Evans: Only for the last five years.
  Mr. Batiste: I urge the hon. Gentleman to read an interesting report to which hon. Members have referred in the past and which will be a useful source document for debates on industry in future. I refer to the report commissioned by the European year of the small and medium sized enterprise from the The Economist Intelligence Unit which makes a wide-scale appraisal of a variety of factors in the United Kingdom on a basis equivalent to other members of the European Community. I accept that such a report, because of the complexity of the issues, must be regarded with a degree of caution, but it makes sobering and important reading for hon. Members.
  In the context of my argument and of the sedentary intervention just made I shall comment on table 61 of the report, which compares the growth in gross domestic product between 1973 and 1981. It is a tragic tale for Britain because we have come, not only bottom of the league, but bottom by a wide margin. The reasons are reflected in the detailed analyses and schedules in the report. Among the reasons is the framework of our labour legislation generally.
  The priority must be to increase economic performance. We shall make major progress only by addressing the problems highlighted in the report. If the Labour party in opposition wish to make a more constructive contribution to that end it would help if they welcomed the
  306
  present economic recovery instead of deriding it at every opportunity, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did this afternoon.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for the restoration of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act and the resultant leap-frogging of wage claims is as sure a recipe for a return to inflation and hyper-inflation as any that I have heard. The considerable reservations and hostilities in industry towards the central arbitration committee and ACAS arise out of the Labour party's unnecessary involvement of them in taking sides in industry during the 1970s.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East made much of the Labour party's care and concern on this subject. Indeed, the motion is tabled by the Labour party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the SDP and the Liberals for not attending the debate. As Labour Members point to the vacant alliance Benches, I wonder whether they can be so proud of their attendance to hear a debate on a motion which they describe as important.
  Ms Clare Short: The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has not been here all the time.
  Mr. Batiste: With respect, I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate.
  I shall concentrate on one aspect of the motion—the wages councils, which have already been referred to. The motion calls upon the Government
  "to abandon its threat to abolish Wages Councils."
  Threats are not unhealthy when directed at institutions that have existed for a long time. They compel such institutions to re-evaluate their progress and usefulness.
  I depart seriously from the tone of the motion because it makes no attempt to address itself to the real problems and difficulties caused by the wages councils. If, on any reasonably objective view, one were to take a sounding on the wages council from industry, one could not but be aware of the severe reservations and calls for reform on all sides.
  So far hon. Members have spoken of wages councils as if they were one entity. In reality wages councils cover a number of different industries and different ranges of circumstances. If we are to debate the issue sensibly and decide sensibly whether reform or abolition is needed, we must accept as a starting point that the arguments may be different for the different wages councils. It is not necessary to generalise and treat all in the same way. For example, different councils create different atmospheres in their work. In some there is almost universal antagonism each year when negotiations come round and independent members merely cast a vote. In others there is relatively little hostility or aggression. In some the process of bilateral negotiation is extremely effective and the role of independent members is that of conciliator and bringer together of both sides.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) referred to the composition of independent members. That is important. If one matter is clear, it is that the independent members on the whole — there are notable exceptions — lack personal experience of business life. One of the weaknesses of wages councils about which most criticism is made is the detachment of the independent members from the problems of industry.
  A second criticism used to be much heard on the union side a few years ago. They said that wages councils

  307
  inhibited the growth of bilateral, collective bargaining and as a consequence tended to institutionalise low pay. That argument was expressed by the unions 10 or 15 years ago. It is not used so much today because the reality of union bargaining has changed. A growth in collective bargaining has occurred in the industries covered by the wages councils. I make no apology for saying that if there is a choice between real collective bargaining and wages council, I should choose collective bargaining.
  The third criticism is in relation to youth wages and the report some time ago in The Economist to the effect that youth wages as a proportion of adult wages are higher in the United Kingdom than in any other western country. I accept that that is not a manifestation confined to those industries covered by the wages councils. It covers a full range of industries, and over a long time has been a process of successful negotiation by unions. The problem is exacerbated in the wages councils area because of the restrictions and inhibitions those wages impose on Government schemes.
  I have a letter from a very substantial employer, which covers my constituency, but not an industry dealt with by the wages council. The point of the letter is one that anyone involved in industry would readily recognise as being true across the board. I shall explain the letter's context later. The letter states:
  "This leads on to the second point. In Leeds, some problems have been experienced with recruiting skilled tradesmen and though this seems surprising, given the level of activity in the Construction Industry, it is not uncommon. This could suggest that the Industry is simply not training enough people to secure its future, which is vital to the economic health of the whole country."
  That letter comes from Leeds city council, which temporarily is under the control of the Labour party.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Batiste: I say "temporarily". The points made by that council are reflected by employers across the country.
  Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Already, when we get minor upturns, industries are running into skill shortages. I understand that the construction industry has experienced that aspect in various parts of the country. That position co-exists with a Government who claim to be massively improving our training system. The reality is that the apprenticeship system is being destroyed and the youth training system does not provide proper training. Therefore, our young people are not being trained and, when there is a bit of an upturn, there are not sufficient skilled workers. I cannot see how that makes a case for abolishing wages councils.
  Mr. Batiste: I have not spoken of "the abolition" of the wages councils. I was trying to point out that different views can be taken of different wages councils. The letter is relevant to establish the fact that there has been a lack of recruitment of young school leavers and, hence, training of future generations of skilled workers, because of the level of earnings attached to such people and the lowering of the age at which adult wages are paid.
  Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that.
  Mr. Batiste: The letter says that there is a major shortage of skills.
  Ms. Short: It does not say anything of the kind.
  Mr. Batiste: If over the years the hon. Lady had been involved with a range of industries, as I have been, and asked them why those problems arose, they would simply say that they would not train and recruit young people because the cost was too high to justify the training.
  Ms. Short: That is absolutely false.
  Mr. Batiste: The hon. Lady may disagree. We must agree to differ. I am trying to point out to the House and the Government the serious problem to which they must address themselves.
  Fourthly, I do not believe that nationally fixed levels can accurately reflect what I believe is now a growing need for regional and local variations to meet different business conditions or differences between individual companies. We went through a period in which it became fashionable to have national negotiations across the board and, with the benefit of hindsight, that has proved to be damaging to our industries. The wages councils, in so far as they are a reinforcement of that process, must now be reassessed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is any pressure being exerted on the Government by Conservative Members to introduce regional wage criteria in their industrial policies?
  Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that regional policy is open to discussion. It is certainly one of my representations that regional variations in nationally negotiated structures are an important aspect of regional policy. If the hon. Gentleman cared to broaden his horizons a little and read the magazine of the Small Business Bureau, he would see that I have written an article, a few weeks ago, on precisely that point.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I hope that the Minister will ignore it.
  Mr. Batiste: My fifth criticism relates to the inherent differences between the organisations covered by a wages council, especially in relation to size, the number of locations in which they operate, and their trade union links. My point concerns whether there are effective collective bargaining arrangements. Any sensible arrangement for fixing wage rates should have a provision for contracting out, provided there is an effective collective bargaining structure to substitute. Where there is a minimum set of conditions across the board, there is no allowance for variations within those conditions. Values can be set and a package juggled in different ways to meet individual circumstances.
  My sixth criticism of the performance of the wages councils is that they have introduced into employment patterns for part-timers a measure of inflexibility detrimental to the health of the enterprises in which they are employed and to the interests of the part-timers. There may or may not be agreement by Labour Members about the degree to which those criticisms are justified.
  What options are open to the Government? There are three broad ranges of option. The first is the abolition of the wages councils, the deratification of the ILO convention when the window opens in 1985, and the acceptance that market forces could provide a better alternative. The second group of alternatives involves reforming the structure of the wages councils. The ways in which they could be reformed could be to exclude young workers, perhaps part-timers and organisations in which there is an effective collective bargaining process and in which both sides wish to contract out. The reforms could

  309
  include the redefinition of the role of independent members and., I emphasise again, the introduction of some freedom to those enterprises, provided they are suitably organised in their collective bargaining structures to contract out.
  A third option has not received a great deal of attention. It has been dismissed out of hand by most people involved. It may be something that the Government should consider. It is the introduction of bilateral collective bargaining with the enforcement of rates and conditions through statutory joint industrial councils. That is not a process that enjoys a wide degree of support on either side of the industry, but it is a process towards collective bargaining. I prefer to see the process of collective bargaining enhanced rather than the wages councils, which are a reflection of a more corporate view of society.
  I have had fairly wide consultations on this issue. As the hon. Member for Workington has correctly deduced, regional policy is something about which I am concerned. This area is part of regional policy. Views vary in industry. The hon. Gentleman might accept the point that, from the employers' side, there are some companies that regard wages councils quite favourably. But, on the whole, few employers accept the wages councils' status quo. To enjoy any substantial measure of support, the status quo must be amended and reformed considerably.
  Many other employers believe that the whole structure should be swept away as being long out of time. There are also many people who study the role of the wages councils and who take the view that if there is to be a choice between jobs and wages councils, it should be the wages councils that go.
  I urge the Government, first, to deratify the ILO convention when the window opens in 1985. Unless that is done there is room for flexibility. Secondly, wages councils should be assessed not as a unitary group but on their individual merits. It should be ascertained whether they enjoy the support of both sides of the industries that they serve. The Government should have room to manoeuvre and for some flexibility if it is found that some wages councils enjoy that support. For some, if not all, outright abolition may be desirable, but any realistic review will show that at least major reform is needed. High-flown phrases about low pay do not begin to address the real problems or provide a solution to the serious, underlying position. I hope that the Government will take the earliest opportunity to commit themselves to action on this matter.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I find it not a little nauseating to hear a solicitor argue about low pay. Solicitors do not need wages councils. They can look after themselves and, by heavens, they do. They make Arthur Scargill and other trade union leaders look like kindergarten children when we see how they have things wrapped up.
  The debate on low pay is part of the perennial political question about the distribution of the wealth produced by our workers. It might be as well to recall that I am old enough to have fought and lost—I may say—the 1945 elections. I remember quoting a remark made by Sir Alfred Mond who had been chairman of ICI. He said:
  "Empty bellies are the only thing that will make Britons work."
  310
  Having listened to the speeches from Conservative Members, I find that nothing changes much. The tenor of every speech, from the Minister to his Back Benchers, was pretty much the same. They voiced sentiments similar to those expressed by Sir Alfred Mond 50 years ago. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said "Low pay is better than no pay." Those sentiments are similar to those expressed by Sir Alfred Mond.
  The Minister—
  Mr. Peter Morrison: If I recall it correctly, Sir Alfred Mond was not a Conservative; he was a Liberal Member of Parliament who represented my constituency when he made that statement.
  Mr. Hamilton: The Opposition do not draw any distinction between Liberals and Tories. It is important to understand that.
  The pressure upon the Government from Back Benchers to abolish wages councils is enormous. Before long, there will be no protection for those whom the wages councils were designed to protect—the lowest of the low-paid workers. The evidence is clear. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East began by saying that his area had some of the lowest paid workers in the country. I am not surprised; Tory employers usually have that distinction, if that is how it is described. The hon. Member said that for those workers who have an element: of protection at least there is a wage floor below which they are not allowed legally to fall. Many employers, however, flout that law. He wants to abolish that floor.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) asked the hon. Member whether any of the workers protected by the wages council legislation had made representations to him in favour of abolishing such protection. He did not answer. I suspect that he has not had one letter from a worker protected by wages council legislation asking for the legislation to be repealed.
  As we expected, the Minister's speech was disgraceful. It was consistent. He began in his usual sanctimonious way by saying that the problem was one of comparison; that there is no poverty today; that people only think that they are poor because they do not have what the other fellow has, but that in any case there are so many safety nets—supplementary benefit, family income supplement and means-tested benefits of one kind or another. It stuck in my gullet when he said that both sides of the House were equally sincere in wanting to solve the problem, when the overwhelming evidence of the past five years shows the opposite.
  The one thing that has become abundantly clear since 1979 is that the rich have become abundantly richer arid the poor have become very much poorer under this Government. That has been the direct result of the Government's taxation, privatisation and other policies. Let not the Minister dare repeat that Conservatives are sincere in wanting to get rid of poverty and low wages, when all their policies are designed to achieve the opposite. All outside objective observers point to that undeniable fact.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that the Government were deliberately getting rid of the fair wages resolution and privatising to atomise trade union bargaining power.

  311
  The Minister corrected me about Sir Alfred Mond. He will not correct me when I mention Lord Eccles. He was a prominent Tory Minister a few years ago. He said:
  "Treat'em mean, and make'em keen."
  He was a Tory philosopher, and he was one of the wets. That is what the Government are doing now.
  Let me give an example, as other hon. Members have, of how privatisation is giving some firms the opportunity to get their noses into the trough. With no fair wages resolution, they can do what they like. Union bargaining power is atomised. I have a good example that I shall put on record, and I have been trying to get an Adjournment debate on the case. A woman in Glenrothes new town wrote to me about a firm called Paragon Marketing Ltd. of 1A, Josephs Well, Hanover Walk, Park Lane, Leeds. British Telecom has chosen to deliver its Yellow Pages telephone directories through private companies this year, and has put the job out to private contract in Scotland. Paragon is a new company that has really been set up to cash in on British Telecom's move towards privatisation and, as it put in the last tender, it won the contract. The Post Office also tendered, but, because the Post Office pays reasonable wages, it could not compete with Paragon. Paragon put an advertisement in the local Glenrothes Gazette asking for workers. There were unemployed people, desperate for a few pounds before Christmas. My constituent replied to the advertisement, and was given an appointment with a supervisor. Paragon told her what the job involved. She was to deliver 750 Yellow Pages directories, using her own car and buying her own petrol. She had to deliver the directories in strict accordance with a three-sheet directive. Every night, depending on how long it took her to distribute the 750 directories, she had to telephone the supervisor to say how many she had delivered and, if she had not delivered the right amount, why not. If for any reason she had not fulfilled the exact terms of the contract, Paragon laid down that it could take back, or refuse to pay, the wages. That woman had to pay for her car, the insurance of the car, the petrol and telephoning the supervisor. At the end of three-and-a-half to four days of delivering the directories from her own car, she was entitled to £41.
  I quote from the distribution instructions of Paragon Marketing Ltd.:
  "Where a directory is not required for some reason you must clearly state the reason on the address card and mark the top left hand corner with a 'D'. If you do not record the reason a sum may be deducted from your payment."
  It continues:
  "failure to telephone"—
  which means telephoning each night after making the deliveries—
  "will make you liable to a deduction from your final payment to cover the cost of the supervisor ringing you".
  Under the paragraph headed "Quality Control and Payment", it continues:
  "Only when those checks prove conclusively that the work has been carried out correctly will your cheque be sent through the post. Cheques will be sent out between 15 and 25 working days after you complete the contract."
  Slave labour is back in this country with a vengeance, and one of the purposes of privatisation of the services is precisely that: low pay is better than no pay.
  I took up the case with the Minister, and with the firm. In a letter dated 23 January 1984, Paragon said,
  312
  "it is normal for payments to be made at the rate of £15 to £25 per day."
  That is a lie. My constituent received, or was about to receive, £41. Paragon promised to pay her before Christmas, and she has not received the money up to Christmas. She wishes her name to be kept anonymous, lest she receives no pay, and I still do not know whether she has been paid.
  This is deliberate exploitation of a situation in an area which already has low pay and high unemployment, as Paragon knows very well. The private firms know where to get this kind of labour.
  As I said, I took up the case with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with responsibilities for corporate and consumer affairs, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher). He replied:
  "I sympathise with her problem but as there is no evidence of fraud"—
  and there is no evidence of fraud, of course, because the firms keep just this side of the law—
  "it is not an appropriate case for the exercise of my Department's powers of investigation under the Companies Acts. Your constituent recognises that she was a self-employed sub-contractor and not an employee, which would explain the non-deduction of National Insurance and tax payments. The distribution instructions forming part of her contract with Paragon seem harsh in some respects, as you point out, but the case is essentially a civil matter on which she should seek advice."
  The Government want nothing to do with these pirates. Poor people in areas of high unemployment and low wages are left to their own devices, and, if my constituent is exploited, it is nothing to do with the Government. It is no concern of the Government that these people are so used.
  That is a good example of why the debate is necessary. The country is becoming a jungle, where only the rich survive. The problem will intensify in the coming years as more industries are privatised and unemployment increases, as it will do remorselessly. Poor people are at the mercy of unscrupulous cowboys who are operating with the encouragement of the Government. The low pay problem will intensify as a direct result of that. It is scandalous that the Government should wash their hands of the matter and pretend that the problem does not exist or, if they accept that it does exist, that it is the fault of the workers.
  The Minister, who is well-heeled as the chairman of the Tory party, received a £5,000 pay increase under false pretences. This is the Minister who lectures the House and says that the trade unions shall behave themselves and modify their wage demands. He did not even submit a pay claim to get his extra £5,000 a year. The Minister should not lecture the House or trade union leaders about the need to modify their wage demands, failing which they will be out of work. Let us have no more of that nonsense from the Minister, or from any other hon. or right hon. Member on the Government Front Bench.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Listening to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), I was reminded of what was written in the Journal for Economic Affairs:
  "Like archaic railway stations threatened with closure, and ill-treated horses, low pay generates irrationality on a wide front."
  I have listened to the debate, and I have waited to hear an objective analysis of the problem and what the

  313
  Opposition intend to do. Low pay, like peace, is one of those concepts on which the Opposition expend floods of emotion and shed very little light. Low pay cannot be seen in the abstract. There can be no objective definition of the term. Wage rates — high, medium and low — are determined within specific legal, economic and political conditions, by negotiation and bargaining. In the last resort, that is what free bargaining is all about between individual employers and employees in competitive conditions.
  I listened with great interest to the words of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). She spoke most movingly of the problems in her constituency. I represent the constituency of Gainsborough where unemployment is a problem. If the Opposition could tell me how to alleviate the problem, I would listen very carefully to them. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that, if wages are forced up too high either through union pressure or Government wage legislation, the predictable consequence must be bankruptcies and more redundancies. High wages that are not precipitated by consumer demand and productivity will raise labour costs. They will have to be paid for by higher prices, which will result in less investment and decreased competitiveness.
  Opposition Members may not like it, but those are the economic facts of life — [Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not think that that is true, I shall tell them the facts. I hope that they will listen to what I am saying. We are, indeed, a low-earning country. The gross domestic product per head of population in Britain is $9,340 compared with $11,360 in the United States of America and as much as $15,920 in Switzerland. Therefore, it can be seen that we are a low-earning country. Let us consider how that situation arose.
  Between 1960 and 1980 output per employee in manufacturing increased by 2·3 per cent. per year compared wth 4 per cent. for the OECD as a whole. By 1980, United Kingdom output per head was two thirds that of Italy and half that of Belgium. It was less than half the rate in Germany, Japan and Holland. Between 1960 and 1980 wages rose 2 per cent. faster in this country than in our seven major OECD competitors.
  Between 1963 and 1980 unit wage costs doubled in the United States of America, Canada and Germany, but quadrupled in this country. Therefore, relative to our level of output and the decline in the competitiveness of British products, British wages simply grew too quickly. Thus there is an intimate connection between wages and employment levels. Over the past 10 years, there has been a rise in real hourly earnings and an increase in the number of jobs lost. In the United States of America, by contrast, employment has expanded by 17 per cent. while real wages have fallen. In other words, while we have priced people out of jobs, the United States of America has priced people into them—[Interruption.] That is true. I did not see any Opposition Member standing up to question the economic facts that I have just read out. They can read them for themselves.
  What lies behind our decreased competitiveness and ultimately behind low pay? I believe that the closed shop plays a significant role in low pay.
  Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has been claiming to give us a lot of economic facts. However, is he aware of the study commissioned by the Centre for European Policy Studies in 1983 on macro-economic
  314
  prospects and policies for the European Community, which concluded that wage cutting would do nothing to decrease unemployment in European countries and that the major problem was a lack of demand?
  Mr. Leigh: I do not know how the hon. Lady or anybody else could deny what a Labour Prime Minister once said — that one man' s wage increase is another man's job loss. That must be right, and the hon. Lady cannot dodge that.
  I believe that the closed shop plays a significant role in low pay. The essence of successful trade unionism—I do not disagree with what trade unionists are trying to do in this respect—is that the number of jobs available of the kind a union controls is restricted with the intention of artificially maintaining a wage for union members that is above the natural market level. That is what successful trade unionism is all about. As a result of closed shop arrangements, people who would like to obtain jobs at union rates but who cannot do so must search elsewhere. Therefore, the supply of workers for other non-union jobs is swollen, further increasing the tendency for wage levels to be lower than in the unionised section.
  However, wage levels cannot be depressed below a certain level because of the existence, quite rightly, of a social security system that guarantees a minimum income—in effect, our minimum wage. As wages approach that level, workers tend to withdraw their labour. Those in that position who opt for the dole rather than for badly paid, non-unionised labour are described by some as the voluntarily unemployed. Perhaps, as Professor Minford has written, they should be described as being involuntarily forced out of the union sector by the closed shop.
  Therefore, closed shops are not just a moral issue, but artificially decrease the material living standards of those who are not fortunate enough to belong to the exclusive brethren who are allowed to join the closed shop. So there is nothing fraternal or egalitarian about the closed shop for the low-paid. Accordingly, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide to bring forward the date by when closed shop arrangements must be submitted to a democratic ballot in accordance with the Employment Act 1982. There could be no better news for the low-paid and unemployed than the demise of the closed shop and the creation of a free labour market that operated like any other market, according to the free interplay of market forces. Thus, the closed shop plays a role in the creation of low pay.
  Opposition Members compound the illusion that trade unionism is in the interest of the low-paid with advocacy of minimum wage legislation. The experience of Great Britain's 26 wage councils and the effect of the minimum wage laws in America—about which we have heard very little from the Opposition — offer examples of misguided state intervention. It is ironic that minimum wage regulations are justified in the name of giving people a fair deal. They have done just the opposite, particularly for young people.
  By reducing the differential between the minimum rate for young workers and the adult rate, those regulations have helped to price young people out of the market. I have not yet heard how the Opposition meet that argument. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research reported in August 1983 that British apprentices were paid 60 per cent. of adult wages at the start,

  315
  compared with only 20 per cent. for their German and Swiss counterparts. In other words, they were being priced out of the market.
  Regulations not only hit the prospects of young people wanting to learn a trade, but often deny them the opportunity to earn holiday money. A constituent of mine has sent me an example. Last summer, he wanted to employ six young people to work on his camping site. He offered them £45 per week and they were happy to accept it. However, an inspector, after investigating, insisted that my constituent pay the youngsters £10 more a week. In the end he could afford only to keep three of them. That example shows the disadvantage of forcing employers to pay a certain wage to young people.
  The Opposition have told us that a low-paid job is not better than no job at all, but surely for a young person a low-paid job is better than no job at all. It provides crucial moral and psychological rewards, and offers young people the opportunity to learn independence, and gain experience and skills. The self-proclaimed spokesmen for the low-paid on the Opposition Benches are often, in effect, their opponents. Minimum wage rules discourage the creation of jobs in other ways as well. Dynamic firms are denied the opportunity to operate in the free market and to undercut their rivals, and in the long run benefit both the consumer and their employees. Every time a wages council decides to up the minimum wage, a small business somewhere is forced to cut staff so that it may survive. Therefore, the Government must act as quickly as possible to abolish wages councils.
  What can be done to help the low-paid? The Government must continue their economic policies. They should increase the threshold at which people pay tax; this would be a real incentive to work and would reduce the poverty trap. The Government must continue counter-inflation policies which are helping the low-paid and helping to get Britain back to work.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: The importance of this debate is that it gives the House and the country an opportunity to determine whether the Government, having abandoned full employment as an objective, have also abandoned the concept of a national minimum standard of living, a wage below which no one should be permitted to fall. The evidence so far from the debate is not encouraging; indeed, it is alarming. Having stood by as more than 3 million citizens have lost their jobs, the Government are in the process of removing the safeguards which protect the rewards of those of the work force who still have jobs.
  The reason the Minister gave earlier was that wages must fall not because workers are inefficient or unproductive but because the low-paid must pay the price for the failure to secure economic recovery. In other words, the most vulnerable, the poorest paid, must pay the price for the Government's mismanagement of the economy and their failure to get things moving and to get the dole queues reduced.
  I should like to give one example of a number of women cleaners employed in a naval establishment in my constituency. Three years ago they were earning what was called the Government's worker's rate. At today's prices it would have been £2·19 per hour. By last year their wages
  316
  had been cut to £1·71 per hour. On 8 January this year they were sacked. On 9 January they were re-employed, only after accepting a cut in their holidays, working conditions that their employer admitted were less than satisfactory, and an hourly rate of £1·50. These women have seen their wages fall by 69p per hour over three years. Their weekly wage would have been £32·90 in today's terms and now they are receiving £22·50 for a 15 hour week—a 32 per cent. cut. Why?
  The first change arose because of what it is fashionable to call privatisation when commercial cleaners were brought in to take over the contract from the Ministry of Defence. The second change came from the rescinding of the fair wages resolution, first passed by the House in the 1890s and strengthened since the second world war. Harold Macmillan, then Mr., called that measure the protector of the standard of living of workers and also of the standard of competence and honour of industry as a whole.
  These women's losses are not an isolated phenomenon, as wage cuts in money terms and real terms are becoming as commonplace in 1984 as redundancies were from 1979 to 1983. I estimate that there are 10,000 low-paid workers in my constituency and 40,000 in the county of Fife. They are low paid in the sense that they earn less than £85 or £90 for a full week's work. That is below the standard recommended by the Council of Europe and the International Labour Organisation. It is only marginally above the Government's own poverty line.
  In Scotland 600,000 men and women earn a weekly wage below £90. Were it not for the hours they work in overtime, that figure would be 750,000, or one in every three men and women in the Scottish work force. That is the consequence of nearly five years of Conservative Government. In all, more than 1 million Scots, half the work force, are in poverty either because they are on the dole or because, although working, their wages have been forced down to poverty level.
  For Britain as a whole the problem is very serious indeed. Poverty wages are earned by 7 million. One person in every four who is in poverty earns his or her poverty. For every 10 who were low paid in 1979 there are almost 15 in 1984. The Government who bear responsibility for these appalling figures tell us that the low-paid are merely unfortunate and that there is nothing they can do other than force their wages down further. Are these unfortunate people on low pay simply because they are taking a share of the sacrifice that has been forced upon all of us? That is not the case, not when the earnings of those at the top of the wages league have increased by about 40 per cent. since the Government came to power.
  In the Government's view, low pay is for the lower-paid—and the lower-paid only. Can we dismiss the low-paid as unfortunate but temporary victims of the Government's drive for economic recovery? No, we cannot, because there is no evidence that economic recovery is in sight. The Minister could not produce any evidence of that. The overwhelming evidence is that the Government will let low pay go on and on. They have decided that low pay is not the problem but the answer and that the nation or, more precisely, a large part of it will starve and shiver rather than spend its way back to prosperity.
  Having in the last Parliament brought about the conditions to force down wages, to create a reserve army of labour, to strip trade unions of established rights and to

  317
  lower the social security safety net, in this Parliament the Government are pushing wages down ever further. Despite all the talk of rewards and incentives, the Government's strategy for the majority of the work force is to lower pay. The tactics have been to end fair wages in public service contracts, to put pressure on wages councils to cut the going rate, to reduce by one third the number of inspectors, to set the lowest pay rate imaginable for school leavers on training schemes and eventually to abandon wages councils altogether. Almost every piece of employment-related legislation upon which the Government have embarked reflects this dogmatic and vindictive obsession with cutting wages.
  Let us consider privatisation which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Publicly the Government's talk is of injecting competition into industries or services dominated by monopolies, but privately, as the former chairman of the Conservative party let slip, their real objective is to break national wage agreements and to throw low-paid workers to the mercy of an unregulated labour market.
  In regard to trade union reform, publicly the Government's talk is of handing trade unions back to the members and of having democracy thrust upon the trade union movement, but privately, as the Foreign Secretary said, the trade union legislation is to be—and I quote his words carefully—
  "valuable in the long term in keeping down wage levels."
  That is the real objective behind trade union reform.
  Let us consider the various youth training schemes that have been mentioned today. Publicly Ministers talk as if they wanted to give school leavers the best possible start in life, but we know that the real objective of these schemes and the wage rates that are set is simply to cut young people's wages and expectations. How else are we and the public to understand the logic of the young workers scheme mentioned today under which employers are to receive a subsidy only if they pay to the 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, whom they would have employed in most cases anyway, wages of less than £43 per week?
  In their published election manifesto, not the secret one, the Government came clean on their attitude to low pay; they said that measures are necessary to
  "ensure that Wages Councils do not reduce job opportunities by forcing workers to charge unrealistic wage rates, or employers to offer them."
  Unrealism is very much in the eye of the beholder. Let us look at those unrealistic wage rates which, if the Government have their way, must fall as a result of their policy: £42 for a fully trained hairdresser, or £8·40 a day; £54 for a full week's work in textile manufacturing, or £1·65 an hour; and £67 for the most experienced shop assistant, or £1·72 an hour. Is that what the Government mean by "realistic" — to have children sent to school hungry and ill clad because their parents cannot earn a living wage, no matter how hard they work and how many hours they labour? Is that what the Government mean by realistic—to deny to millions the clothes and food they need, the occasional celebration, even at Christmas, and the holidays that many of us take for granted, because £50 is an unrealistic demand? Is that what the Government mean by realistic — to make the miseries and uncertainties of poverty a life sentence for millions and a constant threat, if not a near prospect, for millions of others?
  318
  The true unrealism is the Government's blind pursuit of a solution in monetarism that cannot and will not work, a huge and cruel laboratory experiment, painless to some, but an experiment inflicted on the most vulnerable and poorest paid members of the community. It is all designed to test the theory—for which there is no evidence—that people can price themselves into jobs which simply do not exist.
  Where is the evidence—the Minister could not give it — that 3 million workers could somehow be reabsorbed into the labour force under present conditions if they accepted breadline pay packets and the Taiwan working conditions about which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry talks with such approval? Where is the evidence—when there is, on average, only one vacancy for every 150 men and women who seek it in my constituency—that there are jobs for the asking if only the price is right? Where is the evidence—when the value of unemployment benefits, set against average wages, is now the lowest for 50 years—that workers on the dole are somehow making unrealistic wage demands?
  If so far no amount of unemployment, poverty and wage-cutting has conjured up an economic recovery, and if the consensus of economic opinion in Europe, Japan and America is that it never will, where is the Government's evidence that wage-cutting this year, next year or the year after will create jobs?
  The Government say, and the Minister suggested, that there is proof, yet all that the Government can point to is an obscure, and at best controversial, Department of Employment working paper that turns all previous consensus on the matter on its head and alleges that 70.000 jobs could be created if young people accepted a 20 per cent. cut in their wages. But what is admitted, only in passing, in that report is that most of these jobs would first be taken from the adults who hold them but whose wages are higher. Is that what the Government mean by economic realism—to kick one group of loyal and long-serving workers out of the factory gates to make way for rawer, cheaper and more desperate replacements'?
  The Government are obsessed with labour costs and the cutting of wages. That is the purpose of monetarism. But in the real world, are not things rather more complex? Is the running of a complicated industrial society not too important to be left to the economics of the saloon bar? Is it not remotely possible that it is the rate of exchange internationally, and not the rate for the job at home, that has consistently priced our goods out of the export markets? Is it not conceivable that inadequate investment, rather than excessive wage costs, is the greater barrier to industrial recovery?
  Has it never occurred to the Government that low demand for our goods is the real problem facing every factory throughout the country, and not supposedly higher labour costs which are, in fact, now among the lowest in Europe? Indeed, is it not possible that low wages are simply postponing our industrial recovery because they are diminishing the workers' ability to buy goods in an economy that depends on mass purchasing power to survive? Thus, could it not be that poverty pay is not the way things are or must be but simply the way the Government have made them?
  If the Government will riot listen to the Labour party in this matter, will they listen to what the public are saying, for one opinion poll after another has shown that the people of Britain are more concerned about poverty

  319
  and are more intolerant of injustice than the blinkered and M3-obsessed faction now holding sway in the Government?
  If the Government will not listen to the public, will they listen to their former leaders? Will they not take into account the considered views of almost every leader, before the present one, of the Conservative party, who consistently argue that decent wages make for an efficient, contented, productive and stable work force? Apart from setting up the wages councils which the Government are now planning to abolish, Churchill said something that the Minister is today turning on its head. He said that decent conditions made for industrial efficiency and increased, rather than decreased, our competitive power.
  What has become of that great and, we were told in the past, humane Tory ideal of one nation? Disraeli's concept of one nation, I should remind newer Conservative Members, was nothing to do with immigration or race. Disraeli was concerned with the gap that he saw between rich and poor, a gap still with us and widening every month and year that this Government are in office. This Government have recreated the two nations that even Disraeli sought to make one, victimising the weak, raiding the incomes of the poor, abandoning any commitment to social justice and discarding all concern for abolishing poverty, all in the name of monetarism which, even at its best, is greed served up as ideology.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome this opportunity to speak on the problems of low pay, although I shall direct my remarks to reducing unemployment and improving productivity because, as several of my hon. Friends have said, only by increasing productivity can we increase real pay.
  In the town of Bolton 17,500 people are unemployed and over 35,000 householders are dependent on benefits. The problems of low pay have not caused the level of unemployment. That has been created by decades of poor return on capital, especially in manufacturing industry, on which Bolton has historically been particularly dependent.
  The published figures on return on capital in manufacturing show that real returns in the United Kingdom fell from nearly 20 per cent. per annum in 1955 to a mere 2 per cent. per annum in 1980. It is the capitalist's pay that has fallen to too low a level, because over the same period the share of wages in relation to profits in manufacturing rose from 72 per cent. to 92 per cent. We should tonight be discussing the problem of low pay for industrial capital, because that is the key to increasing real wages.
  The way to increase productivity is to reduce interference in the market, and the success of this Government's policies on that is evident from the recent levels of productivity increases shown in the Chancellor's last statement. The figures for the last three years show an increase of nearly 3 per cent. per annum for the economy as a whole and nearly 5 per cent. per annum for manufacturing industry.
  In trying to trace the effect of increasing productivity on the future level of employment, the one area where the greatest improvement in productivity is needed is with the economists themselves, for I understand that no economic model has yet been designed which satisfactorily relates
  320
  productivity changes to employement changes. The Chancellor stated that increased productivity should lead to lower unemployment, but it appears that no economic model has yet been built to show this.
  From my experience of my other marginal constituency, I find that I have been able to build up employment in my own business by becoming more, not less, competitive, and that if I raised wages without an increase in productivity, we should all be out of a job. The recent resurgence of interest in small businesses is bringing that point home to more and more people. It was a failure to understand it in the past which led to so many large firms having to cut back, and so many people thinking that they can get more money without more output.
  Although 3 million people are unemployed, the directors of British Aerospace tell me that they cannot recruit the skills that they need in order to compete in world markets. How will minimum wage levels solve that problem? We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we believe that export customers will pay more for goods than the price set by world levels.
  I seek real solutions to the problem, not make-believe solutions. I endorse the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Terry Fields: It will not escape the attention of those who listen to this debate or read about it that, time after time, on matters affecting working people and their lives and living conditions, Conservative Members come down fairly and squarely in defence of big business interests, and that it is the Opposition who have the real interests of workers at heart. When the Government speak with crocodile tears in their eyes about the needs of working people and in particular the low-paid, they expose the hypocrisy that is part and parcel of their philosophy. The main protagonist of their views has just returned from Moscow to give us the benefit of her experience and the views of Mr. Chernenko.
  It was another Russian leader, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who said that an ounce of experience is worth more than a ton of theory. When the philosophic voyeurs on the Government Benches tell us what is best for us, we do not need to be lectured, because an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest. In 1977, when I had spent 20 years working as a fireman, my family and the families of other firemen qualified for family income supplement, free school meals, and all the other social security benefits that had been introduced by a Labour Government. Pride stopped us asking for them, but we fought in the strike of 1977–78—as only trade unionists and workers can fight—to improve our own conditions. It is by our own hands alone that we have improved the lot of ordinary working people. The rising tide of poverty outlined in the Child Poverty Action Group's pamphlet shows that the Government's efforts to keep down unemployment by keeping wage rates down are failing and that, as usual, it is those least able to defend themselves who suffer worst.
  Women and youths are at the sharp end. Statistics are meaningless unless they are applied to people in real physical terms. Let us compare the wages of male and female low-paid workers in the hotel and catering industry. Of the males, 54 per cent. earn less than £100

  321
  a week, and females in the same industry get £89·4 a week. The Government should think about that. When Conservative Members enjoy sumptuous meals in places around London, they should remember that the people waiting on them and skivvying for them earn less in a week than the cost of the meal that is devoured before their eyes.
  The Government's new earnings survey gives the figures that ought to be rammed down the Government's throat. Almost 75 per cent. of women manual workers earn under £100 a week, and 50 per cent. of white collar women workers earn under £100 a week. Those women are full-time workers—they are not earning pin money, as was traditionally claimed. They include women workers in Liverpool whose earnings are often the sole support of families in areas of high unemployment. Crawfords is closing down, and that will mean that another 1,200 workers will be thrown out on to the stones. The British American Tobacco factory is under threat. Another 1,200 workers, mainly women, are involved there. Both male and female manual workers suffer from low pay.
  The Government pay lip service to youth, but the crimes that they have committed against youth cry for vengeance. Youth is the future of any society, but today's young people have no future—only despair and anxiety, day by day. Young people are being used as a battering ram to compress wages rates for all workers, and their potential is being destroyed.
  If the youth training scheme payment of £25 a week had kept up with average earnings since 1979, it would now be £38 a week. It is deliberate Government policy to keep those wages down, to beat other workers into submission.
  In the past decade, 50 per cent. of all apprenticeships have gone. Engineering was the hope of our industrial base, yet an even higher percentage of engineering apprenticeships has been lost. That is no coincidence. A year ago a leaked document appeared in Time Out that made the reason plain. It said:
  "Young people on YTS would receive a modest allowance well below the normal wage. It would be possible to prescribe a lower training wage for those being trained by the employer (including apprentices). This would be a means of achieving a particularly desirable objective — the lowering of training wages—which is … unlikely to be achieved voluntarily."
  Furthermore, advisers to the Government believed in 1981 that there was a need to extend the differentials between trainees—who are in some cases doing the jobs of the trainers—and other workers.
  What does that mean in human terms? Marconi used to have 36 apprenticeships every year. Now there is not one. Instead, there are 51 YTS workers. In electrical contracting firms, apprentices' wages have been cut from £41 to £27·88 a week, while YTS workers—in some instances doing full-time jobs—are employed, and other workers are psychologically battered into accepting reductions in wages. That creates meagre living standards for them and their families. The Government's own figures, and answers given by Ministers about YTS, show that young people's wages as a proportion of adult wages have dropped by 8 per cent. for males and a staggering 12 per cent. for females. Between April 1982 and 1983 young men's pay rose by only 1·8 per cent. compared with 8·3 per cent. for adult males. Young women's pay rose by only a third of the rise in adult females' pay. So much for the Government's concern for youth. The crocodile tears that they shed do not deceive the young people of this country.
  322
  Let us compare the position of the low-paid in this country, in particular women and young people, with what is happening at the other end of the earnings spectrum. There could be no greater contrast than that between the top-paid directors and the low-paid who are dependent on state benefits. The Labour researchers' fourth annual survey of top directors' pay points out that six directors receive more than £250,000 a year and 28—all men—receive more than £125,000 a year. Between 1979 and 1982 inflation rose by 49 per cent. The average earnings of male manual workers rose by 43 per cent. — six points below the rate of inflation. At the other end of the scale, the wages of the 28 highest paid directors rose by 93 per cent. In 1979, the highest paid 28 directors made as much as 568 times the average wage of the male manual workers whom they employed. By last year they were making 767 times as much as those employees. By cutting tax rates the Government have put more than £1 million directly into the pockets of those top men.
  Mr. Skinner: Do my hon. Friend's figures show that Lord Harris has now joined the board of Eddie Shah's team at the Stockport Messenger or how many thousands of pounds he receives for a few days' work a year? Is there any reference to the suggested fee for the Liberal party leader for being part of an agency known as Prime Performers Ltd. touring the country giving one-night stands of a so-called non-political character and picking up £800 a time on top of his salary? I do not know whether those facts are included in my hon. Friend's statistics, but they are absolutely correct.
  Mr. Fields: My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates the divide between the haves and the have-nots in society. The increasing prosperity of the top directors and the decline in living standards of the poor is a political issue. The Government have legislated to increase the divide between rich and poor. By reducing the highest tax rate on earned income from 83 per cent. to 60 per cent. the Tory Government of 1979 increased the potential of the rich to bring home even more money.
  In 1983 the Government changed the method of calculating the increase in retirement pension due to be paid in November of that year. That piece of meanness will cost a retired couple £1·20 per week. The tax concessions to the 28 top directors would be enough to pay 33,000 pensioners for a full year the amount to which they would have been entitled, but in Britain today luxury for the 28 comes before the needs of the 33,000.
  Last year a director who received a 21 per cent. pay rise became Britain's first company director to be paid more than £500,000 from director's fees alone. The alliance has put down an amendment to our motion, but David Sainsbury, one of its leading members, last year reaped a reward of almost £5 million for his services to the community. Those facts speak for themselves. While the rich minority get richer, what are the prospects for the majority? There is the demoralising effect of redundancy. Wage demands are being kept in check to the point of poverty. Increasingly, suicide is the only way out for whole sections of the community. The economic nightmare of the capitalist system and its Tory defenders mean that 50 per cent. of suicides are among the unemployed. People unemployed for more than a year are 19 times more likely to try to kill themselves. Forty per cent. of people appearing in court are unemployed and

  323
  they exist on 40 per cent. of what the employed are paid. They are six times more likely to batter their children and twice as likely to get divorced. Those are not my figures. They are statistics in a survey carried out for New Society.
  Against that background of deprivation, the so-called pundits and financial gurus wondered what the hell was going on towards the end of last year when there was a boom in spending. That boom was fuelled by borrowing. People wanted to give their children at least the semblance of a decent Christmas instead of the abject poverty that they suffered for 51 weeks of the year. The need to borrow large sums of money led ordinary decent people into the hands of unscrupulous moneylenders, with loan sharks featuring largely in this trade in human misery. The banks were charging 9 per cent. interest on borrowing, but the unemployed could not borrow there because they had no collateral. The finance companies were charging 13 per cent., the trading cheque companies between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. and the loan sharks had no limit at all. People were handing over their benefit books to cover borrowings for which they were paying through the nose. Press reports show that, when taken to court, some of the lenders were gaoled for 18 months for breaching four or five different laws, while their victims have to live in abject poverty for the rest of their lives. There are about 15,000 registered moneylenders in Britain. A small number of very large banks and loan companies dominate the market, but they will not lend to the unemployed or the low paid, who are forced into the murky pools inhabited by the loan sharks.
  Two nations of workers have been created—those who command high rates of pay, and transient workers who cannot command decent wages and who are used by the Government and their supporters to suppress the living standards of ordinary working people. The solution to the problem evades the Tories. Where is the mystery? What is the magic reason why so many people are living in abject poverty and deprivation? There is no mystery at all. The system we live under has failed. It is bankrupt and corrupt and ordinary people are suffering at the sharp end. Conservative Members and the class that they represent cannot match the needs of the majority with the resources of manpower, plant and machinery and so on that exist in this country. The Minister's Alice-in-Wonderland outlook is nonsense. He stands at the Dispatch Box like a third-rate magician pulling statistics out of the air that have no relevance at all to the economy. British Leyland used to export 10,000 trucks per year and the commercial vehicle sector earned large trading surpluses. Last year this country's total trade in commercial vehicles went into deficit for only the second time in history.
  The whole economic base of this country is in tatters because the Government and the people whom they represent refuse to invest the wealth created by working people—the unpaid labour of working people—in the interests of the people of this country. The Government's performance is further compounded in a projection by the stockbroking firm, Quilter Goodison, which has said that by 1988 this country's deficit in trade could be as high as £9·8 billion. The Government do not even understand their own system. They do not understand that they must invest in this country if it is to be competitive abroad. The National Westminster bank has said that £200 billion is needed for this country to challenge competitors abroad in
  324
  new plant and machinery. A mere £5 billion has been thrown at the economy, showing that the Government have no faith in their own system and its ability to compete in the future.
  In 1979 the Government lifted exchange controls. The non-bank private sector invested abroad £60,000 million of wealth created by workers by hand and by brain. The financial institutions of this country invested abroad £30,000 million from the unpaid labour of working people. Those profits were created by working people, not by the drones who exploit them or those whose patriotism relates only to private profit wherever they can get it while millions languish in poverty in this country. Anyone with an ounce of morality or conscience would not allow that to happen in this country and would not subject fellow human beings to such degradation and deprivation and to an almost subhuman condition of life. That is the nature of society today.
  The Government, with criminal disregard for the effects of their policies, and a bankrupt political ideology, will eventually be brought to book by the millions of people subjugated and impoverished by them. People will wake up to the nature of society, and listen to the message of hope denied them by the bias and distortion of the media. The media are owned and controlled by the same people who are refusing to invest in our society, and who have beaten down the living standards of working people.
  When the message of hope brought by Socialism to ordinary people permeates through, we shall see a change. British workers and their families will once again stand tall and make a contribution to their future, not to the riches of a few idle drones. The wealth that they create will not be squandered by a parasitic few, but reinvested in our industries, creating worthwhile jobs and giving people decent rates of pay that will give honest toilers a decent standard of living and our youth a future.
  The duty of Socialist Members is to expose, and to explain to decent people outside the House, why things are as they are, and how they can be changed. For Labour Members, that means in essence the implementation of clause IV, part 4, of the Labour party constitution, giving to all workers, not just a few,
  "by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry … upon the basis of the common ownership of … production, distribution and exchange"
  of our wealth.
  Labour Members support the motion. I shall go further and say that a Socialist society is the only one able to resolve the problem of low pay. We cannot do that in isolation. Socialism raises the question of who owns and controls society's wealth. The Socialist prospect takes into society the means of production, distribution and exchange, and transforms that society into a democratic, Socialist society, planning and investing for the common good, cutting out profiteering. There is no other way. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is kidding the people; one cannot kid all of the people all of the time.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Most hon. Members have enjoyed the speech made of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), and those who did not enjoy it have probably learnt much. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to explain what Socialism offers, this is not the right place to do so, as more than half of us were elected

  325
  in opposition to those ideas and the rest presumably support the hon. Gentleman. What he has to say does not come as much of a surprise to any of us.
  When considering low pay, we must start by remembering that the position of the low-paid, bad though it is, is substantially better than it was 25 years ago, and much better than it was 100 years ago. That cannot be said of many other countries, where people are living on lower wages and have a worse standard living than their predecessors. One has only to consider some of the world's trouble spots, such as El Salvador, and the position of many of those living in Southern Africa, especially those affected by drought or floods.
  I am prompted by some of my hon. Friends to mention countries such as Poland, which, allegedly, has been operating for some time under a Socialist system. The people of that country did not have a high opinion of the achievements of their Government or the party system. On a number of occasions—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) refers to Poland as a Socialist country. Socialism cannot exist without democracy. Poland was never a Socialist country.
  Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wants me to agree with him, I shall do so. I was merely saying that self-proclaimed Socialists say that Poland runs along lines that few in this country believe we should follow. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that it is impossible to have a substantial increase in material standards of living for the low-paid, and others in society, without a flexible political and economic system. The trouble with most countries that declare themselves to be Socialist or state Socialist is that they do not have flexible economic and political systems. It is well worth—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Workington would listen when I am speaking to him. It is well worth remembering the date 4 March 1984, when 750 people will be elected to the equivalent of this place in Moscow, without more than 750 people standing for election.
  Mr. Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noticed that Socialists in opposition can never point to a single Socialist Government whom they are prepared to support? Is it not true that every Socialist Government who call themselves Socialist are told by people here that they are not really Socialists? Would it not be nice if we were given a working example?
  Mr. Bottomley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that that agreement with my hon. Friend will help me to get preferments so that I can take his job, which I think I could do half as well as he does—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which job?"] The unpaid one.
  Mr. John Evans: It is not an unpaid job. The Minister gets £5,000 a year for it.
  Mr. Bottomley: It is good that, as a Member of Parliament, I earn the same as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). It is one of the great attributes of the House of Commons that ordinary Members of Parliament are all paid the same amount and can debate the topic of low pay from a similar position. The hon. Member for Broadgreen talked about people going out for expensive meals. That reminded me that I
  326
  have most of my meals here, and that I lost a tooth on a House of Commons sausage roll, admittedly some time ago. Perhaps the sausage rolls have improved since then.
  It would be better if it were stated openly in the Chamber that even if all the wages councils were abolished and there was no pressure for a minimum wage, many people would still be out of work. The influence of wages councils on pay levels does riot create unemployment, and there would still be unemployment if wages councils did not exist. We would not change that position if the wages councils were immediately abolished. Secondly, no pay increase of the kinds so far discussed would relieve all low-paid people of the need to supplement their income. Both those points must be stated openly. They are recognised and accepted by everyone. It saddens me that a debate can proceed for hours without the basic assumptions being openly put and accepted.
  I do not have strong views one way or the other on wages councils. It is necessary, whether by legislation, commonly accepted arrangements, or general social pressure, to understand that there is widespread exploitation. That needs to be counteracted by whatever appear to be the most effective means. It is also important to recognise, as the hon. Member for Broadgreen said, that it is easier for employers, whether in the public or private sector, to employ more 16 and 17-year-olds at lower rates of pay. If the rates of pay are higher, fewer will be employed. The hon. Gentleman referred to a firm that used to have 36 apprentices and now has over 50 people on the youth training scheme. That demonstrates a fairly obvious point.
  Ms. Clare Short: This must be the tenth time—it is no coincidence — that the point has been made from Conservative Benches that if young people's wages were reduced more would be employed. There is a scheme that proves that that is not so. The Government pay employers, for taking on 16 and 17-year-olds, a subsidy of £15 a week—a considerable amount of money—if they will pay the young people less than £42 per week. Research commissioned by the Government has shown that the majority—about 70 to 80 per cent.—of the jobs that young people have would have existed anyway, the marginal increase in jobs is under 10 per cent., and those jobs have been taken from adults.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: The figure is 6 per cent.
  Ms. Short: I thank my hon. Friend. Therefore, that point has been made 10 times before and we have the evidence not just from research, but in practice.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is keen to make her own point. I was picking up a point made by the hon. Member for Broadgreen, who said that one firm now had over 50 people on the YTS instead of 36. I do not need proof from a research study to confirm what the hon. Gentleman said.
  It seems plain that if an employer believes that he can either give or gain benefit by employing a certain number of people, that is what the employer will do. I asked the Inner London education authority what it pays to 16-year-old school leavers. The figure is about £90 a week. The alternatives for the young person would be unemployment or YTS, with a lower rate of pay. One could suggest to ILEA that it would be worth while at the beginning to give

  327
  those people half that amount, about £50 a week, so that twice as many people could be trained, gaining work experience and skills. As they gained more experience, they would have a better chance of being employed in their late teens and early twenties. That issue is well worth discussing. It would be useful if we heard the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on that point.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I am putting forward a view that is eminently worthwhile. If we were to pay 16-year-olds £150 a week, fewer would be employed than if they were paid £50 a week.
  Mr. Nellist: I know of very few 16-year-olds who are earning £150 a week, but even if one accepted the principle that there should be a reduction in pay to share out the amount of work available, it is extremely unlikely that those at the top end of the scale—such as Members of Parliament or directors who are paid even more—would be willing to admit that fact. For example, director's salaries went up last year by 11 per cent. to an average of £20,000 a year. The youngsters and the low-paid are always asked to make the sacrifices, and that is wrong.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman leads me to my next point. I do not know how many hon. Members have created or run a business and have assumed the responsibility of deciding how many young people to employ and the pay that they should receive. Before I entered the House, I used to erect neon lights outside theatres and cinemas in the West End. I worked in the electrical business which had three rates of pay for the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. We made sure that we employed young people and decided that in time we would eliminate the semi-skilled rate. We decided that everyone would be sent on day release and would work towards the skilled rate. That was the simplest way of getting rid of the restrictive practices and job demarcation that, perhaps rightly, existed after the war.
  Young people started on relatively low rates of pay, but within four years they were working towards the skilled rate. It reached the stage where the employees were asking whether their sons could work in the business, whereas previously, with the three fixed rates of pay, the unskilled stayed unskilled, the semi-skilled stayed semi-skilled and the skilled were top of the tree.
  In the old days people did not want their sons working in that business and, indeed, they needed to obtain training before they entered. When that was changed, their sons began to come in — most of whom had not done particularly well at school. When they attended day release, they began to come out top of the class. When asked why they were doing so well on job-related training and experience they normally replied, "Because my dad, Ted the foreman and the tutor at the college have taken a substantial interest in what we are doing and, anyway, we can obtain the skilled rate of pay within a few years."
  That was my personal experience. Other hon. Members may have had different experiences, but I suspect that, with practical involvement of deciding how many young people to employ and what training to give them, they
  328
  came to the same conclusion as myself, which was arrived at after substantial discussion with trade union representatives and employees from the top to the bottom of the business. It was felt sensible to start young people at a low wage and to ensure that they got the work experience and training so that they could qualify for the higher rates of pay which were above the JIC rates.
  That cannot be done in all industries or in all areas of the country. Even Ministers are unable to say that decisions of that kind will deal with the appalling employment prospects for many people throughout the country. Those decisions are appropriate in some areas, but we must also look to the general youth training scheme, improve it by all means and recognise that it is the best opportunity for many years for dealing with the young.
  I wish to refer for a moment to those who are not young—those aged 20 onwards. It is not possible to give pay rises, with wages councils or without, to solve the problem of low-paid households, especially at a time when they have family responsibilities. Even though we have dramatically increased our standard of living since the war — we have more than doubled it — the problem still remains that in low-paid occupation take-home pay will not support two adults and children. That is why between the wars Eleanor Rathbone fought her battle to introduce family allowances. That is why we have converted the old child tax allowances into child benefit. Although I am unable to develop the argument that I would have made a year or so ago, it is perfectly plain that family income supplement and child benefit are needed to help even out family responsibilities.
  Let us consider what would happen if we accepted that substantial pay increases for all the low-paid were necessary because take-home pay was insufficient to meet family responsibilities. We do not need a research project to tell us. We merely need to look back over the past 10 or 15 years. At that time the TUC was asking for a minimum wage, and the figure has steadily increased from £17 a week to £20, £30, £40, £60, £90 and so on.
  Mrs. Clare Short: Two thirds of average male wages.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady talks about two thirds of national average male earnings. Has she calculated what would happen to the average if all those below two thirds were brought up to that level? At the time of the £1 plus 4 per cent. settlement and the various statutory or semi-statutory Government initiatives, we found that inflation hit the low-paid with family responsibilities harder than it hit other people. We need only look at the components of the RPI to see that most of the elements on which people may spend their real disposable income have risen in price by substantially less than the average, whereas those items on which they must spend their money have risen faster. For example, the price of things such as housing, fuel, food and children's clothes has risen faster than the price of such things as hi-fi's and whisky.
  Therefore, the effect of raising pay as a way of dealing with family responsibilities has been neutral and counter-productive. We must all accept that and ensure that it will not happen in future. The fact is that pay increases as a means of dealing with low pay work only if we have a rigid incomes policy. Experience in the last 10 years shows that that does not work, however much some of us would like it to work.

  329
  The simple question with which we are left is whether we should pay no attention to low pay and leave it to free market forces. I do not believe that we should. There must be pressures, be they social, statutory or industry agreements, to ensure that serious consideration is given to the problem of those on low pay. There should be discussion on how much should be met by things such as family income supplement and child benefit.
  We must consider also what can be done to alleviate changes in industry. There are movements of low pay between industries. Some industries, such as retailing and catering, are perennially low paid while others swing up and down the scale as a result of trade cycles and changes in the industrial complexion. About 15 years ago, we considered the west midlands to have the highest pay rates and the lowest unemployment. That position has changed dramatically. The industrial element must be part of the overall consideration.
  I counsel my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise that arguing for the abolition of wages councils may lead to temporary help to some hard-pressed small businesses, but will not solve the problem of how we create a thriving economy. Many countries have managed, without unrealistic pay increases, to give proper consideration to those who are low paid. They have developed the form of consensus — I cannot use a word such as "compact" because it is unfashionable—that recognises that the real task is to ensure that people can obtain employment, especially when they are young, so that they may start getting into the habit of developing skills and experience. Other countries have recognised that family responsibilities are in the main met by some form of social provision of the sort that we have been developing over the past 25 years. They have recognised that that is worth while. We shall not solve the problem by taking an ideological attitude on one side of the House or the other.
  8.22 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: I am grateful to be given this chance to participate in one of the more important debates that we have had for some time —low pay and the deliberate policy of the Government to increase the number of those living on low pay. That is the reality. Let us have no weasel words from the Government to pretend that that is not so.
  Low pay is not confined to injustice and inequality for a minority, for it goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Government's economic policies. How many people are affected by low pay? How large is the disadvantaged minority? There are 7 million—one third of the work force—who earn less than £100 a week. They comprise the working poor. Anyone who says that £100 a week is not poverty is living in the past. He or she is someone who does not do the shopping, does not pay the rent and does not attempt to look after a family. We are not setting a high standard, for to survive on £100 is extremely difficult.
  There are various ways of defining low pay. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) referred to a number of different ways in which low pay has been defined. The Council of Europe has a criterion of a minimum decent wage. The Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth has given its opinion along with the TUC and the Low Pay Unit. The common figure is about £100 a week. The absolute standard, which might mean something to Conservative Members, of what a family with two
  330
  children needs to earn in order to be on supplementary benefit level, which is calculated on the amount of money that is needed to survive at a low level, is £105·45. Therefore, £100 a week is by no means generous.
  Poverty is relative. There are many in the world who are starving, and hundreds of years ago people lived less well than they do now. To attempt to dismiss relative poverty in our society is to understand nothing of what should comprise a decent society. We live in a world in which some people are generally cold and have to scrabble around to find enough money to buy sufficient food to feed their family. Very often they run out of money at the end of the week. They worry about the children getting bigger because they will not be able to afford new clothes. Yet there are many who live in warmth and comfort and run two cars. They go on foreign holidays whenever they feel like it. That is a disgusting society, and that is the kind of society in which we live.
  Relative poverty is not about absolute starvation. Of course, starvation is a problem that exists in many parts of the world and there are some who should be addressing themselves to it who are failing to do so. Our problem is low pay, and that is what the motion is about. Unless we are willing to take action to increase the minimum wage, we are showing a preparedness to live in a disgusting society in which people are so crudely unequal.
  About three quarters of the 7 million working poor are women. We have discussed the unequal position of women before in the House, and there is general apathy on the Government Benches. Conservative Members seem to think that women should stay at home and that they cannot expect, or should not expect, decent pay levels or a decent chance to make a contribution to society. Debates on women's place in society are occasions of great hilarity.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Lady is making a general observation. May I emphasise that there are many Conservative Members who regard women as equals in society, who happily give equal opportunity to them and open society to enable them to receive equal pay and equal opportunity?
  Ms. Short: I am glad to hear that there is that minority on the Conservative Benches. I attend debates on women's issues and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of sneering.
  Women's earnings are not pin money. Many Conservative Members believe that their earnings should be regarded in that light, but that is no longer so. Without women's earnings, four times as many families would find themselves in poverty on the subjective test of supplementary benefit levels and the level of income which is needed to survive. Women are the sole breadwinners in 400,000 families because their husbands are unemployed. One in 10 families is headed by a single parent who is a woman. If 'we put the two sets of figures together, women are the main breadwinners in one in four of all households. Low pay is predominantly a problem for women, although there is a significant proportion of low-paid men. That is not confined to single women or to women with no dependants. Women are making a contribution to poor households which would he even poorer without it.
  Why should women, who are as intelligent and talented as men throughout the world, be a secondary kind of

  331
  creature and accept lower wage levels and a reduced chance to make a contribution while in work? That is not good enough. We shall not have a decent society with proper mutual respect between the sexes without abolishing the problem of low pay. Low pay is the primary issue for women. If we can tackle the problem, women will have a more equal role throughout society and will make a major advance.
  In discussing the low-paid, we are discussing a policy which has been formulated deliberately by the Government. We were treated to a most disgraceful speech from the Minister, who claimed to have compassion for the low-paid and to be concerned. He claimed also that there was no difference between the two major parties on the issue. The Minister represents the Government, who are deliberately encouraging low pay. The essence of monetarism is to use unemployment as a weapon to cut wages, and the Government's philosophy is built upon that notion. It is believed that in turn trade unions will be weakened, that workers will accept lower wages and that accordingly profits will be higher. That was argued by the Minister and the theme has been taken up by others. As the argument is developed, it is said that investment will increase, we shall achieve more efficiency, the economy will prosper and everyone will be well.
  In practice, we see rising unemployment, an increase in low pay and none of the other things which Conservatives have claimed will follow. It is a policy that Labour Members reject as being immoral in any event, but we have learnt from five years of misery that it does not work and will not work. It cannot be seriously argued that the minor improvements that we are seeing in the economy in 1984 is the end of our problems. Every serious economic forecaster is predicting that things will get worse again in 1985. The indicators show that the claims that are made in the Government's amendment—they want us to believe that our problems are over, that employment will improve and that low pay will decline—are false and must be rejected.
  The Government, as well as pursuing an economic policy that rests on the need to cut wages and, therefore, to increase the numbers of low-paid workers, have adopted a series of techniques to try to speed the process. Hon. Members have mentioned the Government's encouragement of privatisation. The purpose of privatisation in the public services is to cut wages. It makes no other sense. It is a method of reducing the already low wages in the public sector, which at least can be negotiated nationally, and giving tenders to those who pay the lowest wages. Thus, they constantly undercut the wages of those who must perform the jobs.
  The Government have also adopted methods of reducing the wages of young people. It is interesting to note that Conservative Members have obviously been briefed on the matter, and have been told to say over and over again, "The solution to youth unemployment would be a cut in youth wages." They have no evidence for that, and study after study has shown that no movement in youth wages in Britain since the second world war explains the increase in youth unemployment. The Government have desperately commissioned studies to try to prove their case, but they have failed. The Government invented a youth workers scheme that deliberately cuts wages and subsidises employers to pay a low wage; even that has not
  332
  generated more wages for young people. George Orwell described Dr. Goebbel's technique as the big lie. One tells a big lie and keeps on telling it so that everyone believes it. We could discuss the Government's report in detail, but it does not make the case that the Government wish to make.
  The Opposition reject the Government's strategy of using unemployment deliberately to cut wages and to increase inequality. Their thesis is that that will make our society leaner and fitter, but in practice it is not working. We reject their use of the youth training scheme deliberately to try to reduce youth wages, and then to pretend to youngsters that they are being offered a fine training. In practice, they have deliberately destroyed the apprenticeship system instead of building on it. Their scheme is obsessed with the wages that it offers, and little else.
  The Opposition reject the young workers scheme, because we believe that youngsters should be paid a decent wage. If it were true that more young people would work for a minimal wage, we must ask, "What is that wage?" Is it less than £25 a week? Are Conservative Members willing to put forward any decent minimum standard of wages for young people? It would seem not.
  The Opposition reject the threat to wages councils and to the inspectorate, but not because we believe that the present system is perfect — far from it. At its conference, the Labour party committed itself to a statutory national minimum wage. We look forward to that, and to making a great advance in dealing with low pay. We realise that the Conservative party wishes to scrap the wages councils and to replace them with nothing. It is yet another lever and technique to reduce wages still further.
  Ministers should not dare to tell us that they care. Not by their words, but by their deeds will we know them, as was once said. We know them from their deeds—from their deliberate cutting of wages—and they need not pretend that that is not so.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: One thing that is clear from the debate is that the Labour party believes that it has a monopoly of understanding of those who are worst off and who have not come from privileged backgrounds. There are many Conservative Members, whose fathers and grandfathers were unemployed, who have struggled in backgrounds that were not affluent—[Interruption.] This is the unacceptable face of Socialism. Labour Members will not accept that some Conservative Members have fought their way through greater deprivation than was suffered by many of them. Because of that, we can say that we understand and relate to those who are not well off. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to listen; they would rather talk about it. Labour Members do not have a monopoly on suffering, although they frequently come to the House with bleeding hearts telling us, "We know all about it, but you affluent, fat-backsided capitalists know nothing about it." It is nonsense. It is what they would like the British people to believe, but, fortunately for us, the British people are not so stupid. The British people understand that the Labour party does not know everything about them.
  Fortunately, Conservative Members care about the low-paid. I am not ashamed to say that my grandfather, who came from the back streets of Salford, did not work after

  333
  1933. However, my father fought his way from nothing to give me the opportunity to be able to sit in the House today. I am sure that many Conservative Members had a similar experience. The bleeding heart speeches from Labour Members make no impression upon me or many of my colleagues.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: No.
  Many hon. Members have said that the Government's policies led to the problems of the low-paid, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, there were low-paid workers 25 years ago and 100 years ago. The low-paid are better off today when they ever were.
  Ms. Clare Short: That is not true.
  Mr. Hind: That is because of the realisation by Governments of both political parties of the problems of the low-paid. It is wrong and stupid to say that it is the Government's fault. That ignores the fact that other countries have been affected by the recession. There is unemployment in the United States of America—the most powerful economy in the world — in West Germany, and in France. They suffer from problems similar to those in Britain. It is significant that President Mitterrand, who was elected as a Socialist, began by implementing the sort of manifesto that the Labour party invited the people of Britain to accept in June last year. However, the people rejected it, and it is interesting that President Mitterrand has done an about-face and has adopted policies that would be more acceptable to the Conservative party. As a result, the French economy is beginning to pull round.
  We were told in the debate that the Conservative party has a secret manifesto. It is so secret that no Labour Member has seen it, and certainly Conservative Members have not seen it. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) told us that the Government have deliberately created an economy in which the wages of the low-paid are reduced, and that unemployment has been created to establish the Government in power. Think about the sense of that. Britain is a democracy in which people examine the relative economic performances of Governments, and the money in their pockets. Then they think about how they will cast their votes. Will they vote for a party that deliberately sets out to destroy the economy and to lower standards of living? It is nonsense. It is another fairy story that the Opposition would like the general public to believe. It is about time the story was nailed. With due respect to the Opposition, it is rubbish and we should recognise it as such.
  Let us consider the solutions that are being offered by the Opposition to the problems of the low-paid. They propose that we should have a minimum statutory wage of £90 a week. That is very commendable. If it were possible, I am sure that all hon. Members would support it. However, we have to take into account the economy and bear that in mind in making decisions. In 1969, when Mrs. Barbara Castle was Secretary of State for Employment, the Labour party had the opportunity to introduce such a measure, but it was rejected by Labour Members as being impossible to implement.
  We have to remember the trade unions. One of the major policies on which the Labour party fought the last election was free collective bargaining. A minimum statutory wage
  334
  involves a wages policy, which the Labour party rejects. It is not part of Labour's policy. The Opposition advocate that as one plank, but they do not accept it when it comes to a formal wage policy. They know that they are advocating something that the trade unions — the paymasters of the main Opposition party—will not accept. The trade unions will not accept a wages policy of any kind. Although Opposition Members may talk about it and advocate it in the House, they know there is no possibility of ever carrying it through in a statutory form. It is therefore nonsense and lacking in candour to advocate such a policy, and we on these Benches realise that.
  When the deputy leader of the Labour party was recently asked about this proposal he said that it was out of step and did not fit in with his party's policy of free collective bargaining. It does not fit in with what Mr. Sidney Weighell said at the Trades Union Congress three years ago. He was advocating a wages policy, and he described free collective bargaining as the principle by which those with the biggest snouts get the most. He called them pigs at the trough.
  If Labour Members give us lectures on a wages policy and a minimum wage, they should forget about free collective bargaining. They should examine the conflict in the argument. If I may say so, it is very much like the logic of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), whose arguments sounded to me very much like what one would hear at the fifth congress of the USSR Communist party. If what he said had been in Russian, it would have made as much economic sense to me.
  We must consider what the effects of a minimum wage will be on the low-paid. It will. increase the cost to industry. As such, it will lower the competitiveness of industry and destroy the jobs of the very people that the policy seeks to help. One of the major arguments put forward by trade unionists in the 1970s — when they were looking for increases in wages—was that they wanted to restore the differentials that had been eroded by increasing wages paid to other workers. Inevitably, a minimum wage of £90 per week will lead to a rise in wages throughout the system, and that will increase inflation and wages by about 3 per cent. Inflation will lead to unemployment, and the people that the policy seeks to help will not be helped. They will lose their jobs, and will be worse off than before, when they were paid a lower wage, because they will be dependent on benefits paid by the state. That is the unacceptable face of the policy. It is nonsense to say to the general public that it is a policy that will work.
  The hon. Member for Broadgreen told us about the money that is being paid to company directors. There are people in our society who get high wages, but they are a small minority. [Interruption.] Certainly barristers play their part in the system. They employ people. It might be, interesting to consider the number of people who are employed in banisters' chambers throughout the country. Certainly we in the legal profession do not pay low wages. I am sure that if we talked to banisters' clerks in London we would find that most of them were paid more than the average salary of a Member of Parliament. Perhaps on that basis we should join the low -paid.
  We have to view the problem in the light of what the Government have done. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that the Government have done nothing about the low-paid. Since 1979, wages overall in this country have kept well ahead of prices. How do Opposition Members equate that with the idea of making people worse off? It does

  335
  not tally. In 1978, having visited America, Mr. Callaghan told the Americans that the standard of living of the British people had been cut by 5 per cent. and that it was a magnificent achievement that we had been able to knuckle down and face the problems of recession. That is not what the Conservative party has done. The Conservative Government have kept pace with inflation and preserved the standard of living of people on low pay and pensioners. That is quite different from the policy that was adopted by the Labour party. One is judged by what one has done, not by what one says or what one would like to have done. One is judged by one's track record.
  Opposition Members should consider the Government's record carefully. The Government have tried to beat inflation. Even the recently retired Leader of the Opposition has accepted that the way to improve the standards of living of the low-paid is to beat inflation. That is what the Government set out to do and have achieved. Inflation levels are down. That helps the low-paid. It does not provide the low-paid with the pay that they would like, but it gives them hope that things will improve.
  Opposition Members should read The Standard tonight. The CBI is reported to have made a statement on the economy. The CBI is at the sharp end and its members take the risks. They are in a position to judge. They know what orders are coming in and they know their gross profit margins. Clearly the CBI has proved that the Government's policies are beginning to work and are pulling the economy round.
  About 39,000 more people were employed this week. For the first time, things are beginning to move. The Opposition should not be sanctimonious about the low-paid. They should look at what is good for the low-paid. They should not talk about a policy that they cannot deliver. We have a policy that is beginning to work—and we have delivered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Front Bench spokesmen have said that they are willing to exercise restraint in the hope that hon. Members who have spent so much time in the Chamber may be given the chance to participate. I hope that their restraint will not be ignored by hon. Members who wish to catch my eye.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) would do well to remember the custom, and that late in the evening other hon. Members are waiting to speak. His speech was interesting, but tragic. He seems to have forgotten whence he came. He has forgotten the poverty that he has left behind in Salford. His speech will be read by many people in Salford who will feel perturbed that a son of Salford has come to the House of Commons to preach to us in that way and to demand that further damage be inflicted upon them.
  One of the more interesting speeches was that by the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) who deployed a well-reasoned, hard-line argument in favour of the free market. My hon. Friends and I listened to his speech with interest. The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider equally the position of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), who can tell him that the free market in which he believes and subscribes to does not work. That is why he, as a Goverment Back-Bencher, has been at the forefront in
  336
  demanding that there should be a Minister responsible for the midlands and a reversal in regional strategy to ensure that the midlands enjoys some of the benefits that historically have been enjoyed by other regions.
  Mr. Hal Miller: My position was clear. My advice to the Minister was that regional policy should be phased out because it is not a help to industry, but that if they insisted on continuing that policy we in the west midlands demand to be considered on social grounds.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove makes it clear that he subscribes to interventionist regional policies. That is what he has just said by saying that if the policy exists he wishes to join the club. The Government have failed regionally and the free market is not working.
  When we refer to low pay we should turn our attention to what is going on at home, in our own House of Commons. I have a wage slip relating to a person who works within 30 yards of this Chamber. He is not paid £25,000 or £35,000 a year, as are some Members of the House of Commons staff. As an attendant in the House of Commons car park whom we all pass every morning, he is paid the princely sum after tax of £68·89 for working 45 hours per week. He is one of many. He would be better off on the dole.
  All the men who work in our car park have a gross pay of £97·79 per week. The pay for a 40-hour week is £86·94. The after-tax pay of the particular attendant would be only £60 a week for a 40-hour week. What is more disturbing about the wage slip is that the "tax to date" column shows that that car park attendant paid £1,138·50 tax in the current financial year. That is on a wage which I believe to be less than he would draw on supplementary benefit.
  By checking the Official Report, that man will have seen references to concessions to the value of £3 billion for the better-off in the form of capital gains tax and capital transfer tax concessions. That wage slip is a symbol of our debate. It is the conclusive proof that every hon. Member needs that people in our society are being unfairly treated. Such people are here within the House of Commons.
  I should like to think that these men, who earn an hourly rate of £2·17, will be the first to have the benefit of any changes in Government policy that might arise from tonight's debate. It is clear that whatever the definition of low pay—according to the TUC, the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth, the Low Pay Unit or the resolution of the Council of Europe—the House is an employer of people who are paid a little more, or less, depending on the number of dependants, than supplementary benefit. That is wrong, but I am not saying that we can wave a magic wand and overnight transform the wage rate arrangements for millions of people. This is not a loony, east European state; it is a democratic society. In any democratic society, there will be inequality of pay. We have a duty to ensure that, wherever possible, we insulate people from the poverty derived from an unrealistic level of payment for their work.
  The problem is that the Government are committed to free market principles, which will effectively remove the safety net for low pay. The Government will cut youth wages. They will cut public sector wages by keeping them at artificially low levels for many employees and then annually introducing percentage payments, which will only further deepen the problem of the spiralling inequality

  337
  in the reward for work. At the same time, the Government will avidly abolish the wages councils. The Government have no perception of what poverty is about.
  I shall read a letter from a person in my constituency, who sets out beautifully what we are talking about. This person is without work and receives a little more, or a little less, than many others in work. The letter states:
  "I have written a letter to be read out in Parliament. My husband has been on the dole 3 years now. He is 50 years old and is not work shy as the Tories call the people up the North. There are no jobs to get and how many times have they to be told?
  Now my complaints for myself and 1,000s like me.

  1. We haven't enough money to heat our houses.

  2. Also we are not getting any extra bedding as Social Security say we are just allowed 3 Sheets and 2 Blankets so how can this help when the weather is very severe and bitterly cold?

  3. We have to stay in the house as we have no footwear for this weather and we get on each other's nerves. We are just living on a thread and cheesed off with these conditions as they are not brought on by ourselves.

  4. We don't smoke or drink. We just have the TV to depend on. We have no pets as we couldn't afford them.

  I was watching World In Action when one of your M.P.s was trying to live on the dole money for a week which was a disgrace. He went in the pub for a pint and had to stand with an empty pint glass hoping someone would treat him, what a cheek. I wonder if he would like to live on dole money 3 years not being able to get furniture, bedding and the food you need in your tummies this weather to keep warm. Why do we have to suffer? We are all human beings and have a right to live as everyone else. We are going 20 years backwards. It is 1984 now and we should have a decent living. I think the Tory government has gone too far as the people who put them in are not expecting to be in this state. What is there to live for? We are on a point of breaking our nerves."
  That is a desperate letter, and there are millions of such people. The Government Assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), laughed when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) rose to make his speech. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that much of what my hon. Friend said about living conditions in his constituency reflected conditions in constituencies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government cannot afford to put this subject aside and laugh. We are seeing real poverty. Many hon. Members will never understand that poverty because they have never lived in it. Those of us who have never lived in poverty have a duty, perhaps more than others, to ensure that society is helped to develop to protect those who are worse off.
  The most disturbing aspect of the impact of poverty and low pay is its effect on families in terms of their expectations of life. In this society, fed by television and the media, expectations are naturally high. Where those expectations cannot be met, people who feel that they are their due will involve themselves in anti-social activity. Much of the crime wave derives directly from poverty. If this were a country without poverty, crime would fall dramatically. Everyone knows that.
  Instead of investing in family security and support, we invest only in reinforcing the powers of law and order to further subjugate the people. That is not the way to resolve society's problems. We will resolve them only when all of us in the House, irrespective of political persuasion, understand that we have a duty to help and secure for our people the life that we have sought and know is their due.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: I do not intend to enter into the Dutch auction on care and compassion. I do not find it constructive, and we should try to be a little more constructive.
  Before I became a Member of the House, I ran a small business. I had to employ all sorts of people, particularly young people. I found it extremely difficult. On many occasions I wanted to take on young people when the business could not afford to pay them a great deal. They wanted to work. Pay levels and the rules and regulations made it impossible to take them on, thus denying them a job and also the opportunity to contribute to the firm and help it grow. They would have grown with it. That is extremely sad when we are told—and I think that it is right—that small businesses are likely to be one of the main sources of jobs in the future. Small businesses are hindered by rules and regulations, and jobs, therefore, suffer.
  Wages councils have had a role to play but, at best, I think they are arbitrary, and, at worst, they may fix unrealistic pay levels which can be disastrous and cost a great many jobs.
  Why is it impossible for us to trust people sensibly to deal one with the other? Some of the comments that have been bandied about the Chamber give us some idea of why. It is sad that we cannot trust employer and employee to deal fairly with each other without rules and regulations which so often destroy and hinder the jobs that we are trying to create.
  Why must the state insist on being a mixture of wet nurse, fairy godmother and big brother? This has not proved constructive. These rules and regulations cost jobs. I can give an example in agriculture some time ago where women were employed part time. They were not earning much, but they were not working much. It suited them; it fitted in with their family arrangements. New minima were introduced that the employer could not afford to meet. The ladies lost their jobs and the employer lost useful labour. A satisfactory relationship which had existed for many years was destroyed. That is pointless and shows the damage that rules, regulations and minimum wages can cause.
  It is not fair to say that we must have more pay without saying where it will come from. The Opposition say all the time in the debate that they want more pay for everyone, particularly the low paid, but they do not say where the money is to come from. I thought that the fact that we could not do that in our economy, without creating more wealth, had been accepted a long time ago not just by Conservative Members, but by the Opposition.
  What is low pay? Is the miner low paid compared with the Fleet street printer? Is a bus driver low paid compared with a miner? Is a nurse low paid compared with a bus driver? These matters are all relative and, if we care in our pay bargaining for ourselves, we must surely consider others, too. I am sure that the answer for the country is for us to follow the present course, to keep inflation down as low as possible, to look after those at the bottom of the pay scale by maintaining the safety net as high as possible, and to do our best to improve everybody's lot by increased competitiveness and productivity in industry, and increased responsibility in wage bargaining throughout all sections of the economy.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I wish to respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr.

  339
  Batiste). He was advocating the argument set out in the White Paper "Regional Industrial Development". In the White Paper, the Government appeared to suggest that the cure for unemployment in the regions of Britain was to allow free rein to market forces. The White Paper on page 3 states:
  "Imbalances between areas in employment opportunities should in principle be corrected by the natural adjustment of labour markets."
  If the people of south Wales understood that to mean that they had to have more unemployment to cure unemployment, lower wages to cure low wages and lower standards to cure low standards, and when they understood what the Government had in store for them, there would not be much singing in the valleys.
  I refer next to the speech of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord). The Department of Employment's official statistics show that approximately 7·5 million people are on low pay. The number in Wales is about 375,000. I wish to speak briefly about the plight of those people in the valleys of south Wales.
  The Welsh Office provides a document giving an index of deprivation. That is the statistical basis used in the calculation of inner city assistance. In the key districts of west Gwent and mid-Glamorgan, the percentages of economically active people, those who are in work who are officially classified by the Welsh Office as being on low incomes, are as follows. In Blaenau Gwent, the constituency represented with distinction by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the percentage is 34·3; in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, it is 35; in the Rhondda, it is 34·5; in my district of Rhymney Valley, it is 29·9.
  In each of those districts, almost one in three of the working population, according to the Government statistics, are deprived people. They are classified as groups on low incomes. That represents a catastrophe in general terms, and a disaster in terms of the region. The problems of those individuals have to be coped with in a deprived environment in which unemployment is becoming the norm, low wages form a substantial majority of incomes of working people, the environment is destitute, conditions are poor and educational standards are bad. That situation offers little hope, and it compounds the general problem.
  I take issue with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Elmet. He said that there had to be more unemployment to cure unemployment and lower wages to cure low wages. I wish to make two points. First, there is a direct correlation between high unemployment and low-wage occupations. I have been given some statistics by the statistical department of the Department of Employment in its new earnings survey. The figures apply as at 1 April 1983. They relate to wage increases for the 12 months up to 1983. In professional and related employment, the wage increase was 11·1 per cent. For accountants, it was 12 per cent. For estimators and valuers, it was 10 per cent. For finance, insurance and tax specialists, it was 15·4 per cent. For the same period, the figures for manual grades were as follows: gardeners and groundsmen 4·6 per cent., metal working production fitters 4·2 per cent., sheet metal workers 3·7 per cent., and for mains layers and sewer men 0·2 per cent.
  340
  If the argument is right that jobs can be created by low wages, why are there not more jobs for gardeners and groundsmen? If the argument is right that high wages destroy jobs, why are not all tax avoidance specialists, accountants, estimators and valuers on the dole? The answer is that that is a specious argument and does not hold water.
  The hon. Member for Elmet argued that there might be more jobs if we were prepared to accept lower wages. However, the Department of Employment new earnings survey showed a direct correlation between high wages and high employment levels, and between low wages and high unemployment. In the year to April 1983, the average gross weekly earnings of full-time male employees in Greater London was £200. In January 1984, unemployment in that area stood at 10 per cent. In the south-east region, including Greater London, the average gross weekly earnings were £184·9 per week, while unemployment stood at 9·8 per cent.
  Therefore, at the top of the scale we find high wages and low unemployment. However, at the other end of the scale the situation is reversed. In the northern region, for example, including Cumbria, the average gross weekly earnings are about 25 per cent. lower, at £159·3. However, the unemployment rate is about 70 per cent. higher at 17·7 per cent. In my region of Wales, the average gross weekly earnings for men are the lowest in the table, at £156·3, and the unemployment rate in January 1984 stood at 15·6 per cent.
  Conservative Members and the Government must accept that their arguments are without foundation. If they propose, in their regional policy, to use the whip, fear and coercion of high unemployment in the belief that it will generate employment, some sense of security in the minds of those who live in the valleys of south Wales and the other depressed regions of Britain, as well as the serenity and ability to enjoy a complete life, they are mistaken. Those policies will lead to more unemployment, lower wages and more deprivation.
  There is no law of nature or of God that says that people must be poor. There is no immutable law that says that poverty shall exist in our regions. The levels of poverty in my region of south Wales stem directly from the Government's economic policies, and from the way in which we organise our society. I therefore conclude that if we can organise our society in a way that encourages and spreads poverty, we can equally arrange it in a way that attacks and removes it.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) who has sat in the House for most of the debate but who, unfortunately, has not been able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I hope that on a future occasion he will be more fortunate.
  The most depressing speech today was that of the Minister of State in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The Minister denied that low pay exists. There is no programme to deal with low pay. There is not even an apology or an excuse for low pay. All we got from the Minister of State was a long diatribe justifying the fact that low pay has to exist.
  The first three speeches from the Tory Back Benches—by the hon. Members for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram),

  341
  Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and Elmet (Mr. Batiste)—were all based upon a scurrilous attack on wages councils. They were part of a miserable Tory campaign to abolish wages councils and leave without protection millions on poverty wages. I hope that the Labour party in Bournemouth will publish the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and make sure that every member of the catering trade has a copy of it. It should be helpful to it in the next election.
  The motion is short, sharp, and very much to the point. It concentrates on three issues which go to the heart of any debate on low pay. I hope that the debate will trigger a national debate about the scandal of low pay and poverty in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. Indeed, in that respect my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) used a memorable phrase when he said that the Government had abandoned the concept of a national minimum standard of living. The motion deplores the poverty, injustice and discrimination caused by low pay. I have heard not a single comment from the Tory Benches which contradicted or deplored those sentiments.
  My hon. Friends have demonstrated in a series of magnificent speeches that poverty in Great Britain is widespread, and arises primarily from low pay. It affects almost one third of the entire adult work force and is a direct result of the Government's policy. It is increasing. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) and Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) drew attention to the collapse of the economy of the west midlands, once the most prosperous part of the country. They also emphasised the plight of millions of women who are among the lowest of the low-paid.
  Various formulae can be used to define low pay, ranging from the DHSS supplementary benefit earnings equivalent level of £105·45 per week down to the average of the lowest one tenth of male manual workers at £91·30. Most fair-minded people will be happy to settle for the definition of the excellent body, the Low Pay Unit, as the two thirds median of male earnings which gives a figure of £100·20 per week gross. Any fair-minded person knows in his heart that anyone in full employment who earns less than £100 per week gross is low paid. If that individual has dependent adults and/or children, he is also suffering hardship and poverty.
  Poverty is much talked about in political and academic circles, but it is a condition that has to be experienced personally over a period before one can speak about it with authority. Poverty means that when one's furniture starts to fall into disrepair, there is no way of renewing it. It means that there is no money to replace worn-out bedding and old overcoats have to be used instead. It means that no matter how many springs come through the mattress it cannot be replaced. It means that threadbare carpets cannot be renewed. It means that there is no way of replacing broken crockery. It means that when a washing machine finally breaks down it cannot be replaced and clothes have to be washed by hand.
  It means that there are never any new clothes for the mother or father and that when patched-up clothes are finally finished the family must rely on better-off relatives or jumble sales for replacements. It also means the constant dread of being unable to pay the gas or electricity bill, which could mean the nightmare of being cut off, and the Tories have increased the tax on electricity and gas so that thousands of our fellow citizens have neither.
  342
  For children it is even worse because not only can they rarely have anything new in the way of clothes or toys, but even more rarely do they get luxuries such as steak or good meat, butter, jelly, jam or cream cakes, and there is no such thing as a holiday away from home. The feeling of failure and anger at their parents' inability to provide them with any of the perceived good things in life start to enter their minds and they begin to learn at an early age what poverty, injustice and discrimination really mean.
  The second point in the motion
  "condemns the Government for deliberately fostering low levels of pay"
  and I have not heard one comment from the Tory Benches throughout the debate which contradicted or refuted those sentiments. Indeed, the Government — or at any rate some of their prominent members—positively revel in their achievements. Their policies — those of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in particular—have been aimed deliberately at lowering wages.
  Although the number of low-paid workers has steadily increased under this Government and millions of workers have lost their jobs, the Tories continue to prattle on endlessly about people pricing themselves back into work. Indeed, their pitiful amendment to the motion shows that that policy is to continue. The amendment states, in effect, that if people in work reduce their wages, more jobs will be created for the unemployed. There is not a shred of evidence to justify such nonsense, which is really aimed at trying to cause a division between the employed and unemployed.
  The Government and Tory councils' drive for privatisation has been a cynical exercise. It does not seem to have improved local services or been to the benefit of consumers. The abolition of the fair wages resolution and schedule 11 has made it clear whose interests privatisation will serve. The Government's simple appeal for competition as a means of achieving efficiency has resulted in the competition being between employers, being a contest in wage-cutting, as the Government have allowed Departments to accept tenders based on unfair competition and low pay.
  Much of the evidence resulting from privatisation, for example in Wandsworth, has shown that wage-cutting has driven companies down a spiral of inefficiency as penalties incurred reinforce the desire of employers to cut wages, and the fall in the numbers and morale of the work force leads to more penalties. In short, privatisation and the abolition of fair wages has been a charter for exploitation and deepening low pay.
  When we examine the YTS and young workers scheme, we see that not only have the Government sought to undermine established rates of pay, and thereby sour industrial relations, but have attempted deliberately to suppress the rates of pay of young workers through those schemes. Experience of the young workers scheme. which gives employers a subsidy provided that they pay youngsters only a certain amount, shows that the majority of jobs provided under the scheme would have existed anyway, and often at higher rates of pay.
  The Government have actually embarked on a policy of furnishing employers with incentives to pay low wages, although the Government realise that the payment of low wages does not necessarily meet with an equal acceptance of the idea of low wages. For that reason, the Government think it necessary to put pressure on young people who

  343
  refuse to lower their expectations. The Secretary of State for Employment said, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on 30 January:
  "I can see no reason why those who unreasonably refuse to take up the offer of a training place which will significantly improve their chances of employment, or leave that place for no good reason, should carry on regardless receiving full benefits at the tax-payers' expense."
  It seems that coercion in the form of financial penalties is to be brought to bear on young people who refuse to place their confidence in a Government who have created record unemployment, a record number of bankruptcies and a record decline in manufacturing industry, and who have increased poverty. The Government seem to be intent on lowering the expectations of, and demoralising, young people whose only crime was to leave school at a time when the Government were laying waste the economy.
  The third point in the Opposition's motion tonight concerns the threat to abolish wages councils. The Minister's comments about the future of the wages councils in no way clarified matters, and when one considers the very heavy pressure that he is under from the Tory Back Benches, one can see what is likely to happen in the future.
  There is no evidence to suggest that if wages councils were abolished there would be any improvement in employment prospects. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has drawn attention to the ridiculous level of the fines, the cut of one third in the inspectorate since the Government took office, and the fact that there are almost no prosecutions of employers who have ignored wages councils' awards. That is a scandal which should be exposed to the whole country. There were only seven prosecutions in 1982 out of some 9,000 employers found to be underpaying their work forces. That is a dubious record for the Government. How can the Government claim to have the interest of all workers—including the low-paid—at heart, when they appear to be intending to remove the little protection that is afforded to employees to ensure that they achieve something resembling a fair week's wage for a fair week's work?
  The Minister of State said that the Opposition motion suggested no solutions. The House knows that repeatedly, during the past weeks and months, the Opposition have put forward proposals for policies to reflate the economy and modernise the infrastructure—objectives which almost all industries agree to be necessary. We have put forward policies to rebuild our shattered inner cities and provide their impoverished citizens with a better standard of living. We have suggested policies to improve the service industries, and to improve the quality of the NHS.
  Every idea put forward by the Opposition is rejected out of hand by the Government. They have no policies, no ideas, nothing to put before the nation, but any constructive proposal by the Opposition is rejected. That is why our motion is utterly condemnatory. The Government deserve to be condemned for the economic mismanagement which has made Britain into a low-wage, low-productivity nation.
  Skilled craftsmen throughout Britain today—fitters, electricians and building trade workers, men with families and in full-time employment—are so badly paid that they qualify for, and are forced to apply for, family income supplement or housing benefit. That is a scandal and an
  344
  outrage. Yesterday's debate showed that the Government's attitude and actions in relation to housing benefit will further impoverish the low-paid.
  We have heard a great deal today about statistics, percentages and comparisons. Much has been said about incentives to work, with the suggestion that if people would only take lower wages they would be priced back into work. We even heard about the poverty trap whereby low-paid workers who by some chance receive a small rise are worse off due to loss of benefits. When figures are bandied about and statistics are flying around the Chamber, too many Conservative Members forget that those statistics represent people — men, women and, above all, children. As an act of economic policy the Government have deliberately sought to increase the incidence of low pay and poverty. They are to be condemned not just for that. They should be condemned by all decent-minded people for the poverty, injustice and discrimination that they have visited upon hundreds of thousands of innocent children who have a right to expect Governments to care about their welfare and their future. The Government have deliberately abdicated that responsibility. They have made it clear today that they have no intention of putting to the nation any plans, policies or proposals to ameliorate the plight of the millions of low-paid workers in our society. Their only idea is to abolish the wages councils. The Government ought to be condemned and they will be condemned by the Opposition. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Opposition motion.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Opposition spokesman on employment, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), said in the penultimate sentence of his opening speech that this was a serious subject that deserved a serious debate. I could not agree more, although I regret the somewhat petulant and negative way in which the Opposition motion is drafted.
  Low pay is an important subject. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) rightly said, first and foremost it is about people. It is also relevant to the wider debate about economic prosperity and how that prosperity should be shared, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said in his contribution. I agree with the Liberal party spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), that this is not a simple issue. Having visited his area twice during my time at the Department, I appreciate that low pay is an especially important issue in Cornwall.
  I listened with great care and interest to the views of the Opposition. Strong arguments were advanced as to why the pay of various groups should be increased. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East drew attention to the social charter of the Council of Europe. The Low Pay Unit frequently alleges that the United Kingdom is in breach of its commitments under that charter, alleging that there is a commitment to a minimum wage of not less than 68 per cent. of the average wage. The facts, however, are as follows. An advisory committee of the Council of Europe made that recommendation in 1977 but it has never been accepted by the council. Nor, so far as I am aware, is it supported by even one member state.

  345
  The Low Pay Unit is well aware of the facts and does its reputation no good by continuing to peddle an allegation that it knows to be untrue.
  Mr. John Smith: It is all very well talking about the recommendation's legality. I have alleged not that the Government are in breach of anything, but that the European social charter has a decency threshold of 68 per cent. of earnings that any civilised community would accept. Does not the Minister accept that to be a civilised standard?
  Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must understand that the impression given, perhaps not by himself but by the Low Pay Unit, is that that fact is accepted by all member states. That is not the case.
  There is no argument about the fact that some wages are relatively low, and that it would be desirable to increase them, but surely there is no need to base such arguments on artificial definitions of low pay. That hardly does justice to the problem.
  I was disturbed to hear that Opposition Members were concerned exclusively with pay. They seem to conclude that pay levels are set without regard to other economic factors and, worse, that it is possible to raise pay levels for some or all workers without any consequences. There was no attempt to put the question of pay into context. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that pay cannot be considered on its own.
  Let me try to repair that omission. It is incontrovertible—I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and his hon. Friends agree with me—that real pay levels depend on what is produced and sold. That is true of countries, industries, firms and individuals. Pay levels are related directly to the health of the productive sectors of the state: the manufacturing and commercial base that underpins the economy. If that prospers, the benefit will work through in the form of higher pay. If it does not prosper, wage increases will be an illusion. There must be a deeper understanding that pay levels depend entirely—I repeat myself on purpose—upon what is produced and sold. That is also true of jobs.
  The motion gives a totally false and selective impression of what has happened in the past few years. The facts are otherwise. From 1978–79 to 1983–84, those on average earnings—and I stress that these are only averages—increased their take-home pay by 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. in real terms. Perhaps Opposition spokesmen have heard today's announcement that average weekly earnings rose by 7·5 per cent. in the year to December 1983.
  Miss Boothroyd: Can the Minister say what proportion of that figure was overtime worked?
  Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Lady appreciates, there will always be some overtime.
  Miss Boothroyd: That is why I am asking.
  Mr. Morrison: There is always some overtime in the figure but, when compared to previous years, the amount of overtime has generally been lower, but this has started to improve.
  Miss Boothroyd: Will the Minister be precise? I expect precision from him.
  Mr. Morrison: I shall come to that point later in my speech.
  Miss Boothroyd: Not later—now.
  Mr. Morrison: I have made the point perfectly well, and will develop it later.
  Part of the reason for the improvement in real earnings is that inflation is under control. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did not like to compliment the Minister of State on the fact that inflation has come down to about 5 per cent., but that has been a significant achievement, given that it was 20 per cent. at the end of the last decade.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morrison: I shall give way in a moment, and I shall refer to some of the remarks that the hon. Lady made.
  As the Chancellor forecast in his autumn statement, we are well on course for an inflation rate of 4·5 per cent. by the end of this year. Indeed, as the House will know, average prices fell last month. I did not notice the Opposition welcoming that. For everyone it is good news. I would have thought that the House, particularly Opposition Members, would realise that it is good news, especially for the low-paid. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that there was no evidence that the situation had improved. I hardly think that that is so, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded the House.
  Ms. Short: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is trying to claim that things are all right for the low-paid because average wages have gone up. Will he not confess that that is totally misleading because the average does not tell us what is happening to the lowest paid? Under the Government the number of low-paid people has risen. In 1979 one tenth of male manual workers were low paid, whereas in 1983 the proportion had increased to one in six — [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Those are the facts. Similarly, the pay of high-paid workers has gone up, which is exactly what we alleged. The rich have become richer and the poor poorer.
  Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard that I was at pains to say that those were only averages. I was also at pains to say that the fact that inflation had come down and prices had dropped last month was particularly good for the lower-paid.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Sir John Biggs-Davison rose—
  Mr. Morrison: I should like to continue as I wish to develop a number of points.
  That improvement in real earnings was all the more remarkable in that it took place during a major world recession and at a time of major structural change in the economy. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), giving a vivid picture of her constituency in the west midlands, talked about the structural change in the economy and how it affected her part of the country. I understand that.
  During this time, some industries have expanded and others have contracted. In the past, jobs have contracted in older and more traditional industries in areas such as the hon. Lady's constituency, but over the past decade 1 million new jobs have been created in the services sector. Whole new industries have been created — fast food outlets, video recorder and home computer industries,

  347
  security services and energy conservation. Some 40,000 people now work in the micro-electronic industry in Scotland—more than in coal or steel.
  The past decade has been a time of change in industry. That has been reflected both in the type of jobs available and in the pay levels that they command. Earnings in some industries have gone up relative to the average—in the energy industries, in financial and business services and in the chemical and allied industries. Of course, others have declined relative to the average, such as motor manufacture, construction, textiles and footwear. That is true not only of industries but of occupations. In general, non-manual jobs are in relatively greater demand than manual jobs. Adjustments in relative pay reflect that, and earnings of white collar workers—I accept—have grown faster than those of manual workers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give an absolute assurance to the House that the deflation of wages will not form part of the Government's policy for industrialisation in the outer regions?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman heard what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said when he asked that question earlier. My hon. Friend replied perfectly correctly, and I stand entirely by what he said.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend said that he should like many more people to have higher wages. Is not the question of unduly low wages a reflection on the trade union movement? Should it not be doing more to improve the condition of lower-paid workers?
  Mr. Morrison: I shall refer shortly to the position of some trade unions, and my hon. Friend will discover that I am in substantial agreement with what he said.
  The hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) asked about the position of women in the economy. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman got his figures from, because, relative to men, women have improved their position. In 1970, their average hourly earnings were 63 per cent. of men's earnings, and today that proportion has risen to over 74 per cent. Indeed, during the recession, women have, relatively speaking, done rather well. Their employment has fallen by less than that of men since 1979, and the number of women in part-time jobs — which many women actively want—has risen.
  Although the Opposition do not like to hear it, there is more good news. Yesterday's output figures showed that in 1983 output in production industries was 2½ per cent. up on 1982. Both the Common Market and the OECD forecast that the United Kingdom will have the highest growth rate in 1984 of any Common Market country. For example, private sector housing starts in 1983 were up 20 per cent. on 1982 and are on course for the highest figure for 10 years.
  The CBI quarterly survey, derided earlier in the debate, points to a further rise in business confidence, further increases in manufacturing output, a broadening of recovery in capital goods industries and a 7 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment in real terms in 1984, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) was at pains to point out the importance of an increase in investment.
  348
  Opposition Members choose to ignore these facts and continue to look at pay in isolation, but there is an unbreakable link between pay and jobs. In the decade of the 1970s — the decade of high pay rises and low productivity—jobs were exported to other more efficient countries. Countries such as Germany have higher real pay levels and lower unemployment as a result. That is because their industries are more productive and pay increases are related to increases in productivity.
  The link between pay and jobs is widely recognised. With 3 million people unemployed, there can be no doubt that jobs for the unemployed are the first priority. I quote from a joint TUC-Labour party document entitled "Partners in Rebuilding Britain". It states:
  "The first call on the nation's resources must be the creation of jobs for the unemployed".
  I agree with that priority, although judging from the tenor of the debate, I wonder whether Opposition Members believe that that is no longer the first priority. That priority is reflected in our amendment. I hope that the Opposition still remain of the same view.
  That is one reason why we introduced the young workers scheme, which is directly designed to improve young people's job prospects by opening up the differential between young people's pay rates and those of adults. The hon. Member for Ladywood will be pleased to hear that more than 250,000 young people have benefited from the scheme. The hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) were at variance on whether the level of youth wages had anything to do with whether school leavers and whether 17 and 18-year-olds were more likely to get a job. The hon. Member for Ladywood asked whether anything had been published about the case that she had put forward. She will know that in the Employment Gazette of last June, the findings of one of our economists were published. Those findings stated:
  "Using improved data and concentrating on the period 1969 to 1981, the study shows that the employment of young people under 18 years of age appears to have been reduced by increases in their average earnings relative to the average earnings of adults. That is especially apparent for males."
  That was backed up by a report from Warwick university by Messrs. Merrilees and Wilson. I hope that the hon. Lady will now accept that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow had a published basis.
  Ms. Clare Short rose—
  Mr. Morrison: No, I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a letter from the TUC about this matter, to which was attached a document, part of which stated:
  "There must obviously be some truth in the proposition that, with all other things being equal, an individual employer will tend to employ more people if wages are lower and fewer people if wages are higher."
  That is a quotation from a TUC document.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State made the Government's position clear on wages councils. I appreciate that there are stongly held views on both sides of the House. I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by all Opposition Members and by my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), Ludlow and Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). The suggestion of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North that

  349
  the Government have a devious plot to abolish the councils is not borne out by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who said:
  "We will look with a most searching eye into the operation of the wages councils and examine fairly—not ignoring the facts or refusing to face them—whether their existence and operation increases unemployment. If that turns out to be true, it would be a dereliction of duty if the Government were to continue the system merely because we have always had it".
  The youth training scheme has been a point of discussion in many different ways. I regret that the hon. Member for Ladywood referred to it as "that rotten scheme".
  Miss Boothroyd rose—
  Mr. Morrison: No, I shall not give way.
  Miss Boothroyd rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Morrison: As I was saying, the hon. Member for Ladywood referred to the YTS as "that rotten scheme". Has she visited the training centre which is in her constituency, as I have? Has she seen the trainees in that centre? Has she learnt how enthusiastic they are about the scheme?
  Miss Boothroyd: Will the Minister now give way?
  Mr. Morrison: No, I will not.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ladywood appreciates that the managing agencies are enthusiastic as well as the trainees. Whatever the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and his right hon. and hon. Friends may say about the £25 allowance, I find that the trainees are quite happy with it.
  Miss Boothroyd: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morrison: They understand that it is an investment in their future. It is an investment in their ability to get jobs.
  Unless the low-paid get better training, they will not acquire skills; if they do not acquire skills, they will not get better pay. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East did not refute the suggestion that he had contradicted the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Does he wish to do so now?
  I recommend the amendment to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 289.

  Division No. 168]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Alton, David

  Blair, Anthony

  Anderson, Donald

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Buchan, Norman

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnett, Guy

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Ian

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  350

  Cartwright, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clay, Robert

  Loyden, Edward

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Coleman, Donald

  McGuire, Michael

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Conlan, Bernard

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Madden, Max

  Cowans, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Martin, Michael

  Crowther, Stan

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Michie, William

  Dixon, Donald

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dormand, Jack

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Douglas, Dick

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Nellist, David

  Eadie, Alex

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Brien, William

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fatchett, Derek

  Park, George

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Parry, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Flannery, Martin

  Pendry, Tom

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Forrester, John

  Pike, Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Prescott, John

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Randall, Stuart

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Redmond, M.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Golding, John

  Robertson, George

  Gould, Bryan

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Haynes, Frank

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Snape, Peter

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hume, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  John, Brynmor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Tinn, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Torney, Tom

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wallace, James

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Wareing, Robert

  Lambie, David

  Weetch, Ken

  Lamond, James

  Welsh, Michael

  Leadbitter, Ted

  White, James

  Leighton, Ronald

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Wilson, Gordon

  351

  Winnick, David

  Woodall, Alec

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. John Home Robertson

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dunn, Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Amess, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ancram, Michael

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Arnold, Tom

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Ash by, David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Farr, John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Favell, Anthony

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

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

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baldry, Anthony

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Marcus

  Benyon, William

  Franks, Cecil

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Best, Keith

  Freeman, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Galley, Roy

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Body, Richard

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Greenway, Harry

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gregory, Conal

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brinton, Tim

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Grist, Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Browne, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hannam, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harvey, Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, J.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Heddle, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hickmet, Richard

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hill, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hirst, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon

  Hooson, Tom

  Cope, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howard, Michael

  Corrie, John

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

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Crouch, David

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Irving, Charles

  Dover, Den

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  352

  Jessel, Toby

  Osborn, Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Parris, Matthew

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  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)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Knox, David

  Pollock, Alexander

  Lamont, Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Latham, Michael

  Powley, John

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Raffan, Keith

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Lightbown, David

  Renton, Tim

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lord, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Luce, Richard

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Rost, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rowe, Andrew

  MacGregor, John

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Maclean, David John.

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Silvester, Fred

  Malone, Gerald

  Sims, Roger

  Maples, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Marland, Paul

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marlow, Antony

  Spence, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spencer, D.

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, John

  Mather, Carol

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mellor, David

  Stokes, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Tapsell, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moore, John

  Trippier, David

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Mudd, David

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Neale, Gerrard

  Ward, John

  Needham, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Neubert, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Newton, Tony

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norris, Steven

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. John Major and

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Mr. Archie Hamilton.

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 196.

  Division No. 169]

  [10.13 p.m.

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fallon, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Farr, John

  Amess, David

  Favell, Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Arnold, Tom

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Fox, Marcus

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

  Franks, Cecil

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Baldry, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Galley, Roy

  Benyon, William

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Best, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Greenway, Harry

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Bottomley, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

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

  Grist, Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bright, Graham

  Hannam, John

  Brinton, Tim

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Harvey, Robert

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Browne, John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hayes, J.

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayward, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Heddle, John

  Butterfill, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hill, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hirst, Michael

  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

  Clegg, Sir Walter

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Corrie, John

  Irving, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Dunn, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knox, David

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lamont, Norman

  354

  Latham, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Powley, John

  Lightbown, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Raffan, Keith

  Lord, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Luce, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Renton, Tim

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rhodes James, Robert

  MacGregor, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Maclean, David John.

  Roe, Mrs Marion

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

  Rost, Peter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Madel, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Malone, Gerald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Marland, Paul

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Marlow, Antony

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shersby, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Silvester, Fred

  Mather, Carol

  Sims, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spence, John

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Spencer, D.

  Mellor, David

  Stanley, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Steen, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stokes, John

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moore, John

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Trippier, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Newton, Tony

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Norris, Steven

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Warren, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Parris, Matthew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. John Major.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Beith, A. J.

  Alton, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Blair, Anthony

  Ashton, Joe

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Barnett, Guy

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

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Bruce, Malcolm

  355

  Buchan, Norman

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Caborn, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lambie, David

  Campbell, Ian

  Lamond, James

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Canavan, Dennis

  Leighton, Ronald

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Cartwright, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clay, Robert

  Loyden, Edward

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Coleman, Donald

  McGuire, Michael

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Conlan, Bernard

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Madden, Max

  Cowans, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Martin, Michael

  Crowther, Stan

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Michie, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dormand, Jack

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Douglas, Dick

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Eadie, Alex

  Nellist, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, William

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Park, George

  Fisher, Mark

  Parry, Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Forrester, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Foster, Derek

  Pike, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Prescott, John

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Randall, Stuart

  Garrett, W. E.

  Redmond, M.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Golding, John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Gould, Bryan

  Robertson, George

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Sheerman, Barry

  Haynes, Frank

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Snape, Peter

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hume, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  John, Brynmor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Tinn, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Torney, Tom

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wallace, James

  356

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Winnick, David

  Wareing, Robert

  Woodall, Alec

  Weetch, Ken

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Welsh, Michael

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  White, James

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Wilson, Gordon

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the most important step towards any improvement in pay levels is by a general improvement in the economy; therefore welcomes the encouraging signs of economic recovery, the improvement in training, the increase in productivity and the reduction in inflation; and recognises that the number of people who have a job will depend directly on the levels of pay received by those in work.

  Low Pay

    MATRIMONIAL AND FAMILY PROCEEDINGS BILL [LORDS] (COMMITTAL)
    Ordered,
    That—

    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of bills), if the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords] be read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Special Standing Committee.

    (2) The special standing committee shall have power during a period not exceeding 28 days, excluding periods when the House is adjourned for more than two days, from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records and to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than two and a half hours each. The first such sitting shall be in private and the remainder, except as the Committee order otherwise, shall be for the purpose of hearing oral evidence and shall be in public. The oral evidence shall be printed in the Official Report together with such written evidence as the committee may order to be so printed.

    (3) For the sittings referred to in paragraph (2) of this Order, and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64(1) (Chairmen of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 68(1) (Procedure in standing committees)—

    (a) Mr. Speaker shall appoint any Member other than a Minister of the Crown as chairman of the special standing committee.

    (b) the chairman shall be included in calculating the quorum of the committee.

    (4) When the special standing committee has completed consideration of the Bill, the chairman shall put the question, `That I do report the Bill to the House' unless a Minister of the Crown shall move, 'That the Committee do now adjourn'. If such a motion is made, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of standing committees) may be decided after One o'clock.

    (5) If the question is agreed to, the committee shall meet again on the day and at the hour named by the chairman to consider any amendments which may be moved by a Minister of the Crown which—

    (a) arise from undertakings given by Ministers of the Crown during previous sittings of the committee;

    (b) are consequent upon previous decisions of the committee;

    (c) have been shown to be necessary during the committee's proceedings;

    (6) If the proceedings have not been concluded before the end of two and a half hours the chairman shall interrupt them and put the question 'That I do report the Bill to the House', unless on a motion made by a Minister of the Crown, on which the question shall be put forthwith, the committee agree that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned, or that the debate be adjourned.

    (7) The day and hour of any further sitting shall be named by the chairman, and the provisions of paragraph (6) shall apply thereto.

    (8) Except as provided in the foregoing paragraphs, the Standing Orders relating to standing committees shall apply to the special standing committee.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Asbestos Waste (Tipping)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
10.25 pm
Mr. Den Dover: I wish to raise the important question of the proposed disposal of asbestos at Croston near Chorley in Lancashire.
In June 1983 the Lancashire county council waste disposal authority sought a licence for the tipping of not only domestic waste but asbestos in a tip near Croston, and, as the waste disposal authority, it granted itself that licence.
At a public meeting held in September as part of the consultation process—admittedly taken after the licence had been granted—I pointed out that the site was very waterlogged, that the claypits used for a brickworks would not retain the water and that round any asbestos that was put into the tip water would therefore be swilling. I mentioned to Lancashire county council, and to the North-West water authority, waste management paper No. 18 on asbestos wastes, in particular paragraphs 6.2 and 7.17. Paragraph 6.2 states:
"Waste disposal authorities will have taken into account for site licensing purposes the vulnerability of any ground water and surface water resources considered to be at risk from the possible migration of asbestos fibres from the deposition of fibrous asbestos waste or dust, whether loose or in bags. However, where sites are situated on fissured, fractured or jointed strata leading to aquifers, and where water-filled sites are in hydraulic continuity with surface and ground water resources, migration of fibres to water resources is possible."
Paragraph 7.17 states:
"The drainage characteristics of a land-filled site where asbestos waste is disposed of or the location of a deposit should be such that no possible wash-out of asbestos fibres is likely to take place."
Lancashire county council and the North-West water authority considered that the site was, nevertheless, watertight. I took it upon myself, therefore, to visit the site regularly to measure water flowing off from that site down well-defined sewers, and in particular from areas where I could measure the surface area and the rate of flow. Over the weeks I found that the flow-off of water as some 20 to 40 times normal rainfall. As a result, not only do puddles form from rainwater on the surface, but there is infiltration of ground water. Many of the local farmers and residents use underground boreholes to pump up their water, unfiltered, which they use for drinking water, for spraying crops and for their livestock.
I realised that the guidelines were being broken, and that there was the possibility of asbestos getting out into the ground water with a resultant health hazard. I therefore engaged the services of Professor Rowe, who is an international soil mechanics expert and one of my old professors at Manchester university. I asked Professor Rowe to produce a full soil mechanics report on the groundwater. I obtained three borehole logs from Lancashire county council, and Professor Rowe ascertained immediately that water, as when the boreholes were taken, would rise to 1·5m from ground level. He then had to gauge how long that process would take. Based on permeability readings on site, he was able to judge that that would take probably weeks or months, and not more than a year or two. There was, therefore, the possibility of water swilling round the asbestos tipped into the site. I collated that information, and sent it to the Minister who
358
will reply to the debate tonight. At about the same time, an inspector from the hazardous wastes inspectorate—an independent unit within the Department of the Environment — visited the site. He agreed that water would rise to within 1·5m of the surface but thought that that would take centuries rather than decades. Thus there was a great divergence of opinion between the two experts about something that might put public health and lives at risk.
I shall quote from the only source of information that I have from the hazardous wastes inspectorate. A letter was written by the inspectorate on 30 January to Lancashire county council. The fifth paragraph states:
"The clays themselves also have low permeabilities. On the basis of the information you provide"—
to the county—
"plus visual inspection I would expect the clay in most areas to have a permeability lower and probably much lower than the 1 x 10-12 metres per second measured by your laboratory."
That permeability could never be achieved by a clay, no matter how stiff. It could be achieved only by laboratory conditions, and by hand-made bentonite slurry. Therefore, there has been an error in laboratory testing or in the interpretation of the results. The factor of error is 100 or, possibly, 10,000 and that shows why the length of time taken for the water to rise up is centuries in the view of the inspector, rather than weeks or months in the view of Professor Rowe.
I then noted to my satisfaction that some monitoring boreholes had been put down. They were 4 in in diameter and have been put down during the past four or five weeks. They had been put down to a depth of between 13 and 16 in. I was interested about the level of water in those monitoring holes. They have been measured every few days, and the water has already risen from 16m down, to two to three metres from the surface. That surely shows the amount of water pressure from the underlying aquifer—water-bearing—sandstone strata.
In addition, there is clear visual and photographic evidence galore of enormous quantities of water on that site. Lancashire country council, which operates the tip, has had to use two or sometimes three large pumps night and day. Recently, it had to Import a 10 in diameter pipe to pump it away. The flow measure was much higher than the rainfall for that area. Therefore, there is a ground water problem.
Lancashire county council considers that it should dump asbestos on that site. It may say that even if the water flows up and swirls round the plastic bags — and everyone assumes that with consolidation the plastic bags will burst, and the dust will get out — it will not necessarily dissolve or gel: into the ground water. However, I submit that evidence is not categorical on that point. Research has been undertaken in America and other countries for several years without being conclusive. In addition, Professor Rowe says in his report that there are already well-defined channels from the water-bearing strata up through to the open pits.
It is no good the chief executive of the North-West water authority saying that those clay pits at the upper level are "effectively watertight". Either they are or they are not. There is a well-defined connection, according to Professor Rowe's report, between the upper pits and the lower water-bearing strata. That means that those fibres can easily be sucked down when people use the boreholes to obtain their drinking water. or water for their livestock

359
and crop spraying. In addition, those fibres can be transmitted not only a mile or two, but tens of miles in the underlying strata. The strata go on for tens of miles. They are open rocks, which will take the water at a fast rate.
I asked the county council for specific information, so that Professor Rowe and I could meet the hazardous wastes inspector and try to comply with the Minister's wish to sort out the difference of opinion round a table. I therefore asked the county for certain information, and repeated that request in writing. I have been refused, point blank, key information that would permit a meaningful meeting to take place. The sort of information I am asking for is the borehole logs for the initial boreholes and the monitoring boreholes, and the results of any laboratory tests. I am asking for comments and observations by any staff of the North-West water authority or the county on the effect of ground water and subsoil conditions on the dumping of asbestos. I am asking for a statement on why the excavation has been taken down to a certain level. I have had no answer to that. The county surveyor tells me that no calculations have been carried out on that. He saw no need for them. I asked how the leachate or the surface water within the site during the 10 years of tipping would be contained without being released to drainage, surface water run-offs or local rivers—because that is what was said in the planning application. When one considers that over the years there will be tens of metres of rainfall on that site, how can it produce an answer to that?
I have asked for readings of the water levels in the. monitoring period, a copy of the hazardous waste inspector's letter of 22 December and a large scale map showing where the boreholes were, the locations, the ground levels and the proposed contour lines before and after the tipping took place. None of this information is being released to me. I see this as an abuse of power by Lancashire county council when lives, health and safety are at risk.
While I have been investigating the problem in detail, it has become apparent that inadequate safeguards exist. That is why I wanted to raise the matter. I am hoping that at some stage I shall be given the information and the opportunity of sorting out the difference of opinion with the county.
There are some points of principle that I should like to raise. Why does the county want another asbestos tip? There are three privately operated tips within five miles of Chorley available for the disposal of asbestos. The quantity of asbestos now to be disposed of is 40 per cent. below the peak of four years ago. Why, then, is it necessary to supply more tips? It does not make sense. There should be more crossing of the county boundaries in waste disposal and more use of the private sector. Perhaps a guideline should be laid down that no hazardous waste will be put into areas where permeability is greater that 1 x 10-7 metres per second. On this site, according to our calculations, it is greater than that.
There should be some sort of accountability or method of inquiry so that county councils do not grant to themselves licences without having to justify why they should have them. Where is the compliance with the asbestos waste guidelines and with the European Community directive under which, as a member state, we
360
are required to take the necessary steps to prevent the introduction into ground water of substances known to possess carcinogenic properties. That includes asbestos.
I have asked for the information from the county council to be provided within 14 days,. It would take a further 14 days before a meaningful meeting could be held. If I do not get the information, I can only conclude either that it does not exist or that the council is unwilling to release it to Professor Rowe or myself for reasons best known to itself. I would then have to consider what further steps were open to me, as the local Member of Parliament, to try to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of the people and the lives of the livestock in the area.
I may have to ask the Secretary of State to hold or call for the holding of a public inquiry and the revocation of the licence. I hope that I shall get the support of the Minister to go down that route if pressure from him, as from me, fails to get the necessary information from the county.
10.40 pm
Mr. Robert Atkins: I am grateful to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate, particularly because, though the site is in my hon. Friend's constituency, the proposals will directly affect my constituents in the Moss Side part of Leyland. The lead that my hon. Friend has taken in trying to persuade Lancashire county council that the tip would be wrong for the area is welcomed by his and my constituents, and I am pleased to be able to give him support both tonight and generally in the campaign that he has been waging.
I find the attitude of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council reprehensible in this matter. My hon. Friend has taken a great deal of trouble in seeking professional and expert advice, but when presenting the case so as to gain answers to his questions he has been met by a brick wall. It is instructive to note that even members of local Labour parties in my constituency — and, I suspect, in other parts of Lancashire—who have taken up the matter with the county council have also found themselves up against a brick wall. So the attitude of Lancashire county council has been reprehensible.
I hope that the council will provide the information that my hon. Friend and I have requested, and I wish to emphasise how strongly I believe that the Minister should support my hon. Friend in his campaign to ensure that this tip does not occur in Chorley, with the consequent effects that such a tip would have on the surrounding area, which includes part of my constituency of South Ribble.
10.41 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) for the way in which they have spoken on a subject which is obviously of great local importance and which relates to a number of issues which are of national importance as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has obviously become a considerable expert on the subject and will not need me to tell him that the principal responsibility in this area lies on the local authority, which is why, rightly, he went to the local authority for information and to express his concern about the matter. But it might be helpful if I gave some of the background on how the Government

361
view their responsibilities and how they relate to the local authority. The main relevant legislation is the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which makes it an offence to dispose of controlled waste anywhere other than at a disposal site specifically licensed or authorised by resolution by the waste disposal authority and which must be managed in accordance with site-specific operating conditions. These are drawn up by the waste disposal authority with the object of safeguarding health and environmental quality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is right to say that these licences and resolutions involve the water authority, which has a statutory right of appeal to my right hon. Friend if it believes that there is any danger to water; but as at present designed, that procedure does not have all the public inquiry elements of the planning system. Any waste disposal site will require planning consent originally, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the addition of a special licence in respect of a site which was not originally intended for special waste can be granted by the waste authority without going through a further planning act; it is not thought to be a matter of planning law at that point.
The water authority has a right to intervene if it thinks that there is a danger to the water system. There is a duty on the water authority so to manage the site that there is no threat to public health. That might be relevant to a district council, although I do not know whether that would be relevant in this case. There is a duty on waste disposal authorities so to manage the site that there is no threat to human or any other safety. If there were a case—and I tread warily in matters of the law—for saying that the authority was in any sense in dereliction of its duty, it would be worth considering whether general legal action, perhaps by a district authority, or, in special circumstances—here, legal advice would be needed—by an individual, might be appropriate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley pointed out, my Department has published an extensive series of waste management papers — he quoted from one of them—including one on asbestos, setting out codes of practice and giving advice about safe disposal. We have found over the years that, on the whole, those are sensibly followed by most authorities. Indeed, some authorities—and in some respects, to be fair, Lancashire is one of them—have gone beyond our guidelines and developed further guidelines of their own.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has mentioned the district council. I represent west Lancashire, and the tip abuts upon my constituency. The district council is aware of the problem and, I suspect, is concerned about it, as are the residents of west Lancashire who live near the site.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. He may wish to draw the attention of the district council to what I have said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley mentioned the European Community directive on the protection of ground water. It would be absolutely necessary, as part of
362
the assessment of the suitability of any site for a range of wastes, to consider the possible migration of any pollutants from the site which might cause damage to the ground water. The site must meet the requirements of that directive.
I shall not waste my hon. Friend's time by dealing with all the matters which he already knows about. My hon. Friend's concern, and his conduct of the investigations, could not be said to be frivolous. My concern is whether the public are getting the information which would make the difficult and unpalatable legal action possible, if it was embarked upon.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend's anxiety that the Lancashire county council has not given him the information that he wants. My hon. Friend is by no means a crackpot, but, even if he were, the fact that he has sought out Professor Rowe, who is a man of undoubted international reputation—a reputation which has been further enhanced by the fact that he has talked to my hon. Friend—should convince the county council that this is not a frivolous matter. All hon. Members get letters from people who are not entirely serious, but the county council would be well advised to take seriously the concern of my hon. Friend.
As a result of my hon. Friend's concern about this I will return to what can be published of the work of the hazardous waste inspectorate — a newly formed, small but expert inspectorate of which the Department is proud. The inspectorate has a great deal of work to do in covering the whole country, but it is setting about it very sensibly and we have high hopes of it. It consists of high-quality people and it may be to the advantage of people who, like my hon. Friend, are concerned about these matters if we try to make some of its conclusions available if they are relevant to public concern.
Publication of the actual site reports might not be the best solution. The inspectors take notes and, rightly, set down at once their precise feelings and judgments about people. It might be difficult to publish those reports verbatim, but as a result of this debate I will consider whether we could as a matter of course publish any follow-up letters that the inspectorate may write to an authority following inspection of a site;, rather on the lines of the publication by my old Department of the reports delivered to school governors by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. To show willing, as it were, in view of my hon. Friend's reasonable concern that these matters should be open and public, I will consider that.
I think that my best course tonight is to join my hon. Friend in the view that in matters of such great scientific doubt and difficulty, in which he is far more expert than I, there must be a serious meeting between the experts if their views diverge widely. To achieve that, my hon. Friend must be given the necessary information. I urge the county council to provide it so that the matter can be settled.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Drains)
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Drains)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Tyne and Wear Metropolitan Council (Abolition)
  Tyne and Wear Metropolitan Council (Abolition)
  Spoil Disposal Schemes
  Spoil Disposal Schemes
  Local Government (Finance and Manpower)
  Local Government (Finance and Manpower)
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas
  Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Empty Industrial Property (Rating)
  Empty Industrial Property (Rating)
  Operation Groundwork
  Operation Groundwork
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Woodlands (Compensatory Agreements)
  Woodlands (Compensatory Agreements)
  Charitable Housing Associations
  Charitable Housing Associations
DEFENCE
  Research
  Research
  Czechoslovakia
  Czechoslovakia
  155mm Ammunition
  155mm Ammunition
  Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Nuclear Tests (Compensation)
  Trident
  Trident
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  HMS Invincible
  HMS Invincible
  Falkland Islands-UK (Flight Time)
  Falkland Islands-UK (Flight Time)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Church Leaders (Defence Discussions)
  Church Leaders (Defence Discussions)
  Naval Dockyards and Services (Contracts)
  Naval Dockyards and Services (Contracts)
  Type 22 Frigates
  Type 22 Frigates
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Contempt of Court
  Contempt of Court
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Electoral Register Data
  Electoral Register Data
  Police Constabularies
  Police Constabularies
  Metropolitan Police (Rating Precept)
  Metropolitan Police (Rating Precept)
  Charities
  Charities
  Concessionary Television Licence Fee
  Concessionary Television Licence Fee
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Trades Unionists (Eastern Europe)
  Trades Unionists (Eastern Europe)
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Drug Offences (Wolverhampton)
  Drug Offences (Wolverhampton)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Children (Cigarette Sales)
  Children (Cigarette Sales)
  Salmon Poaching
  Salmon Poaching
  Law Society of Scotland
  Law Society of Scotland
PRIME MINISTER
  Mineral Rights
  Mineral Rights
  Consultation Documents
  Consultation Documents
  Society of Friends
  Society of Friends
  Civil Servants (Positive Vetting)
  Civil Servants (Positive Vetting)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Expenditure
  Aid Expenditure
  Lake Malawi (Road Extension)
  Lake Malawi (Road Extension)
THE ARTS
  Thomas Gainsborough (Paintings)
  Thomas Gainsborough (Paintings)
  John Constable (Paintings)
  John Constable (Paintings)
  Arts and Libraries Programme
  Arts and Libraries Programme
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Retail Food and Allied Trades Wages Council
  Retail Food and Allied Trades Wages Council
  European Community Social Fund
  European Community Social Fund
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax and Social Security Contributions
  Income Tax and Social Security Contributions
  Taxation Statistics
  Taxation Statistics
  Corporation Tax (Allowances)
  Corporation Tax (Allowances)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Income Statistics
  Income Statistics
  Imports
  Imports
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Freeports
  Freeports
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Tied Premises
  Tied Premises
  Gaming Machines (Licence Duty)
  Gaming Machines (Licence Duty)
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Woodlands
  Woodlands
  Farmers (Payments)
  Farmers (Payments)
WALES
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Megavoltage Treatment Machines
  Megavoltage Treatment Machines
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
TRANSPORT
  M25 (Traffic Flow)
  M25 (Traffic Flow)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Dim-dip Headlights
  Dim-dip Headlights
  British Airways
  British Airways
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Nissan Motor Company
  Nissan Motor Company
  Ladies' Underwear
  Ladies' Underwear
  Microprocessor Training Courses
  Microprocessor Training Courses
  Small Businesses (Guaranteed Loans)
  Small Businesses (Guaranteed Loans)
  Industrial Assistance
  Industrial Assistance
  Counselling Services (Rochdale)
  Counselling Services (Rochdale)
  Whisky Exports
  Whisky Exports
  Household Products (Child Resistant Closures)
  Household Products (Child Resistant Closures)
  Radio Piracy
  Radio Piracy
  Cars (Exports—Imports)
  Cars (Exports—Imports)
ENERGY
  Offshore Production Licences
  Offshore Production Licences
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Enterprise Oil
  Enterprise Oil
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Truancy
  Truancy
  British Antarctic Survey
  British Antarctic Survey
  UGC (Equipment Grant)
  UGC (Equipment Grant)
  Hysterectomy
  Hysterectomy
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  Palestinian Self-determination
  Palestinian Self-determination
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
  EC Offices,, London
  EC Offices,, London
  President Andropov (Funeral)
  President Andropov (Funeral)
SCOTLAND
  Scottish TUC
  Scottish TUC
  Weather Damage (Aid)
  Weather Damage (Aid)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Lothian Region (NHS Funding)
  Lothian Region (NHS Funding)
  Long-term Unemployment
  Long-term Unemployment
  Scottish NFU (Allowances and Grants)
  Scottish NFU (Allowances and Grants)
  Aberdeen (Oil-related Industries)
  Aberdeen (Oil-related Industries)
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Stonefield Vehicles
  Stonefield Vehicles
  Electricity Board (Consultative Councils)
  Electricity Board (Consultative Councils)
  Business Confidence
  Business Confidence
  Student Travel Awards
  Student Travel Awards
  Mallaig (Road Construction)
  Mallaig (Road Construction)
  Sheltered Housing Accommodation
  Sheltered Housing Accommodation
  Hamilton College of Education
  Hamilton College of Education
  Bathgate Leyland Plant
  Bathgate Leyland Plant
  Blood Supplies (Private Hospitals)
  Blood Supplies (Private Hospitals)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
  Clydeside
  Clydeside
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Charity Commission
  Charity Commission
  Heriot-Watt University (Pharmacy Department)
  Heriot-Watt University (Pharmacy Department)
  Under-fives Initiative
  Under-fives Initiative
  Free School Transport
  Free School Transport
  Rates
  Rates
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Hospitals
  Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Hospitals
  Health Authorities (Statistics)
  Health Authorities (Statistics)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  St. George's Hospital
  St. George's Hospital
  Mrs. G. L. Stevenson
  Mrs. G. L. Stevenson
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Maternity Beds
  Maternity Beds
  Girocheques (Thefts)
  Girocheques (Thefts)
  Supplementary Benefit (Computer Network)
  Supplementary Benefit (Computer Network)
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure and Resources)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure and Resources)
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Phenylbutazone and Oxyphenbutazone
  Phenylbutazone and Oxyphenbutazone
  Non-steroidal Drugs
  Non-steroidal Drugs
  Griffiths Report
  Griffiths Report
  Health Authorities (Administrators)
  Health Authorities (Administrators)
  Supervisory Boards
  Supervisory Boards
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Local Departmental Offices (Closures)
  Local Departmental Offices (Closures)
  Health Services (General Managers)
  Health Services (General Managers)
  Megavoltage Treatment Machines
  Megavoltage Treatment Machines
  Viral Hepatitis
  Viral Hepatitis
  NHS Regions (Resources)
  NHS Regions (Resources)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Health Authorities (Contracts)
  Health Authorities (Contracts)
DEFENCE
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  CS Gas (Animal Experiments)
  CS Gas (Animal Experiments)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  A-level Courses
  A-level Courses
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Companies (Annual Returns)
  Companies (Annual Returns)
  Nissan Corporation
  Nissan Corporation
  Rates
  Rates
  Lear Fan 2100 Aircraft
  Lear Fan 2100 Aircraft

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

Lord Bottomley
The Right Honourable Arthur George Bottomley, OBE, having been created Baron Bottomley, of Middlesbrough in the County of Cleveland, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.

Generic Medical Prescribing
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: 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 their new campaign to encourage generic prescribing by doctors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have been reviewing the information and advice already provided to doctors on prescribing. We are currently considering ways in which this information could be improved in order to persuade the medical profession of the value of generic prescribing.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I further ask him whether a report published by the Royal College of General Practitioners, entitled Prescribing—A Suitable Case for Treatment, which strongly advocates the use of generic terminology, will be taken into consideration by the Government? Secondly, do the Government have views about the colouring of tablets prescribed under the National Health Service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the report to which the noble Lord has referred made a number of recommendations on factors which influence general practitioner prescribing. We are considering these in the context of our planned campaign. It suggests, however, that there are savings to be made through generic prescribing. This is a view which we share. So far as the presentational characteristics are concerned—the colouring, the shape and the size of drugs—the Greenfield Report noted that some patients might have reservations about differences in size, shape and colour, but there is no evidence that such differences are a major problem. I am sure that the manufacturers of generic drugs will respond to demand, should it become a major problem.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the Government consider assisting doctors in this matter by bringing in the recommendations contained in section 24 of Dr. Greenfield's report?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government have said that they will encourage generic prescribing but that there are problems associated with generic substitution.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent random survey of prescribing by general practitioners which was carried out by St. Mary's Hospital in North London showed that, after receiving information on the cost of their own prescribing, the general practitioners voluntarily reduced their prescription costs by £200 a month? If this were replicated among all general practitioners, is the noble Lord aware that it would represent a saving of £60 million a year? Can he say what action the Department of Health and Social Security is taking to ensure that all doctors are given this information about their own prescribing costs in order that they may do likewise?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly true that not only the effect of generic prescribing but also the quantity of drugs which are prescribed account for a very great deal of the cost. I have seen evidence about information, stored on computers, which can be recalled to show when a patient was last prescribed a drug and, when he comes for a repeat prescription, whether or not it is right that he should have it. That is looked at on its merits by the doctor at the time; but certainly the department will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Segal: My Lords, could not the manufacturers of proprietary medicines be encouraged to show in larger letters the generic name rather than the proprietary name, instead of vice versa?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is a point which will certainly be borne in mind by the manufacturers.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I understand the difference between generic prescribing and generic substitution, but would the noble Lord not agree, reverting to his previous answer, that section 24, which advocates generic substitution, will be of very great assistance to doctors?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government have decided not to adopt generic substitution. The Greenfield Report recommended that pharmacists should, wherever possible, substitute near equivalents. This is already widely practised in hospitals, but in general practice it was felt by many retail pharmacists and doctors that it was impracticable for a number of reasons, not least of which were the problems of quality control and divided responsibility for the treatment of patients.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, could the Minister tell us how long this practice has existed in hospitals?
Lord Glenarthur: Not without notice, my Lords.

Nurses: Employment in NHS
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 number, if any, of state registered nurses and state enrolled nurses who, have obtained their qualification, cannot find employment in the National Health Service.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the information which the noble Lord requests is not available centrally. There may be some local difficulties, but no serious problems in newly-qualified nurses finding jobs have been brought to our attention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that there have been reports or spasmodic instances where nurses, having completed their training, have been unemployed for a short period? That situation is causing some concern, and does the noble Lord not agree that this is a matter which the DHSS should look at?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, nurses have never been guaranteed posts on the completion of their training, and there has always been the need for a certain amount of mobility among newly-qualified staff. It is the case at the moment that more nurses have to move from the localities in which they train to obtain posts. I ought to tell the noble Lord also that a good proportion of recorded unemployment in nursing occurs among people whose availability for employment is somewhat restricted. They include, for example, those seeking to return to the nursing service after a break in their careers. As nursing is basically a female occupation, family ties also produce problems, of which the noble Lord will be aware.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister accept from me that there are scores of nurses at present in Westminster Hospital who will be completing their training in June and July of this year, and that they spoke to me no more than 48 hours ago telling of the fears they have that when they do complete their training they will then be forced to sign the unemployment register? If there is no serious risk of that taking place, could not some means be found of telling those young girls so that they will not he worrying about going on to the unemployment register after giving three years of unstinted service to the medical profession?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot speak specifically about Westminster Hospital, but I will certainly bear in mind the point that the noble Lord makes. I revert, however, to what I said in answer to his noble friend Lord Molloy: that some measure of mobility will be necessary in many cases.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not a very unsatisfactory situation, when the Minister cannot give an answer to my noble friend Lord Molloy? Why
256
are accurate figures not available? I understand that the last figures available were in September 1982, and they showed 10,793 qualified nurses unemployed and 8,849 unqualified. Why is it not possible for the noble Lord the Minister to give figures now? Is it because of the cuts in the number of people collecting such statistics? Is this not a thorough waste of the skills and training of nurses at a time when they are surely needed, particularly to deal with an ageing population?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am unable to give a figure because the information to which the noble Lord referred was supplied by the Department of Employment, but following the introduction of the voluntary registration procedure in October 1982, of which the noble Lord will be aware, information about occupation is not available in the unemployment benefit office records, on which the unemployment count is now based.
I will go further and say that, unlike the noble Lord, I do not believe it would necessarily serve any particularly useful purpose to collect the information he seeks. So much of it is a question of local conditions, of conditions relating to family activity, and so on, to which I referred when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Lord Ennals: But with respect, my Lords, surely this is far more than a question of local conditions, because the figures, even as they were reported then, were twice as high as they were in 1979. Is it not a fact that there are nurses now being trained who, on completing their training, will be unable to find employment within the health service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I said when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that there would he a period of time, perhaps, when a few people, after they had finished their period of training, would be unemployed. The number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff registered as unemployed in England in September 1982—which is the last date for which figures are available—was 7,057. That was an increase of 1,746 over the previous year. The number registered as unemployed then represented about 2 per cent. of qualified staff and those in training, and we have no reason to believe that that figure of 2 per cent. is any different now.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that it is not just a question of newly-qualified staff not being able to find work? Difficulties are also arising in the case of married women who leave the profession temporarily to have a family and who then wish to return on a part-time basis. Will the Minister look into the availability of work opportunities for those people whose skills would otherwise be wasted?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe that I covered that point, too, in answer to an earlier supplementary question. The fact remains that the important task in the health service at the moment is to make the best use of the manpower facilities which are available generally, and to make sure that they are more efficiently employed then would be the case if one just hired people to take on responsibilities which could be filled by people already in post.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree with me that nurses make very good wives?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not sure to whom the noble Lord is married. On the other hand, I am quite sure that he is right.
Lord Morris: My Lords, bearing in mind my noble friend's response to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is he aware that the House will he extremely gratified to hear that he will bear Lord Fitt's suggestion in mind? However, is he also aware that the noble Lord asked whether it is possible for him or his department to contact the nurses at Westminster Hospital in order to give them some form of comfort in regard to their concerns and worries?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, essentially that is a matter for the local health authority concerned. I am sure the chairman of the local health authority will note my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the Confederation of Health Service Employees, popularly known as the nurses' union, this temporary unemployment of state registered nurses and enrolled nurses might he spasmodic and it varies from region to region? I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to recommend to regions, where the confederation feels that there is an unnecessary hiatus created when nurses achieve their diplomas and become full-time SRNs and SENs, that they immediately enter into discussions with the confederation with a view to reducing the time during which nurses are unemployed, which is a great waste for the nation, and of course injurious to patients.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, facilities do exist for representatives of CoHSE to talk to the regions concerned, and of course the regions are in direct contact with the department.

Northern Ireland Administration
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will appoint junior ministers in the Northern Ireland Office drawn from the Unionist parties, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Alliance Party.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, if the Northern Ireland parties were prepared to work together in an administration, the way would be open to devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly as provided in the Northern Ireland Act 1982.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his reply. Would he accept that this suggestion is not an original one but
258
one which has been made by others, including a distinguished Northern Ireland Privy Counsellor? Would the noble Viscount agree that if it were adopted it would be a first step towards power sharing, an incentive to make the Assembly work; and, above all, it would show that the Government are really keen on the political process as they were in 1982 and previously?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, that it is not an original suggestion. Regarding helping towards power sharing, I should point out that the opportunity for power sharing is available under the present Assembly and under the present Northern Ireland Act 1982. However much people like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I (who were associated in a previous endeavour) may regret it, that failure is there and we have to accept it. As for the proposal helping towards that end, I have to point out to the noble Lord that such proposals as he puts forward would of course create considerable constitutional problems, particularly of collective responsibility.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, would the noble Viscount the Minister accept from me that there would be no-one more anxious than I to see the political experiment in which he and I were engaged in 1974 resurrected and brought to a successful conclusion? But is it not a fact that there are three major political parties in the North of Ireland: the Official Unionist Party, the Sinn Fein Party and the SDLP, who are at the present moment boycotting that Assembly? If the Government were to accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to create these offices, would that not be regarded as something of a bribe? With the experience that the noble Viscount has had in Northern Ireland, is it not the case that you cannot bribe politicians into that Assembly, that they will only go there when they are convinced that arrangements made to suit their own parties have become foreseeable? At the moment it would seem that the furum deliberating in Dublin may, we all hope, hold some sort of key to enabling those members who are at present boycotting the Assembly to once again put in an attendance.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There are other people besides the noble Lord and myself who would very much like to have seen the continuation of power sharing, but that was not to be. As for the position today, I very much regret that the Northern Ireland parties in many cases have not seen their way to be able to take part in the Assembly. That is their decision, and the noble Lord is perfectly right. As for the Irish forum, we shall have to see what comes out of that; and the Government will of course consider carefully what is said there.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount appreciate that, except for debates on Northern Ireland orders and Statements—which are, tragically, all too frequent—there is no opportunity for your Lordships to debate the general question of Northern Ireland? Will the Government therefore give an undertaking—whatever the report of the new Ireland forum may be—that there will be a debate in this House?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I will consider that through the usual channels. Of course, there are many opportunities for debate in this House; and if I were to concede that point directly, I would expect a certain quid pro quo, as there is a lot of Government legislation to get through the House and I would hope to have support in doing that.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, highlights the irrelevance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which less than two-thirds of its members attend? Some of them have boycotted the Assembly almost permanently and I believe that the Assembly costs about £3 million annually. Does not my noble friend the Leader of the House think that the time has come for this rather pointless Assembly to be wound up so that the money, time and effort involved in it could be better spent in combating terrorism and ensuring greater prison security, which must be the Government's prime objective?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Lord on the need for security and, indeed, for prison security, in Northern Ireland. Anyone who had my responsibilities there would do so. Equally, I appreciate the problem of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in that there is need, if we are to be successful in security, to have some political progress, and that is what my right honourable friend was seeking to do through the Assembly. I deeply regret that it has not succeeded and I hope that there may still be a chance that it will.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that there is a political stalemate in Northern Ireland which is assisting the recruitment of men of violence, particularly from the younger generation? Will the noble Viscount give the House a little more encouragement and say that the Government are looking for the opportunity to take a new political initiative which might very well include the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think I should be arousing expectations if I were to give that hope, because it has to be faced that the problems of security in the North are paramount, and must be so. I do not wholly accept the argument about the recruitment of men of violence. I believe that one must realise that there are people who will probably continue with violence, whatever is done, either in the North or the South of Ireland. I fear that that must be said because I feel it very deeply.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that those of us interested in Northern Ireland are grateful to him for not holding out false hopes, of which we have had far too many?
Viscount Whitelaw: Mr Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has had considerable experience in Northern Ireland, as I have. Anyone who has had any experience there and who holds out false hopes is a very unwise person indeed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in his second reply, the noble Viscount mentioned collective responsibility.
260
Could this perhaps be overcome by merely appointing one junior Minister from each of the two main traditions in Northern Ireland?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the point I was making was that it is up to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to decide to whom she offers jobs in her Government. Equally, it is up to the individuals who are offered them to decide whether to accept them. I think the ground of collective responsibility would make it very difficult for some of the people the noble Lord proposes to accept those jobs.

Seat Belt Release: "Highway Code"
3.8 p.m.
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 advice will be given in the next issue of the Highway Code on the need to practise the release of unfamiliar seat belts before starting a journey.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to this particular omission in the Highway Code. The Government will ensure that it is remedied at the time of the next revision. Drivers will be advised to spend a little time prior to starting their journeys explaining to their passengers how the release mechanisms operate.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am most grateful to him for that Answer?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's reply that the Government do accept there is a need for a standardised release fitting for seat belts? If they do not, is there any reason why? If they do, what discussions are taking place with manufacturers?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it would be quite wrong for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to make that assumption. I said nothing whatsoever about there being standardised mechanisms. Why not? I thought I answered that when I dealt with a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, earlier this week, when I gave a full explanation of why the Government do not think that that is an advisable practice to encourage.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House when the next edition of the Highway Code will come out?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, revisions of the Highway Code take place when a substantial weight of advice in the code requires amending. There are no plans to undertake a revision of the code at present. The last publication was in 1983 and there is a note in it about seat belt wearing, as there is in the Department of Transport's manual called Driving.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me how many people read the Highway Code?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, our understanding is that most people who apply for a driving licence, and receive a free copy, read it. I have on more than one occasion suggested that more people should acquire the code, which costs only 50 pence. I also suggested in an Answer only a few months ago that if some noble Lords would also take the code and disseminate the information in it that might be for the benefit of all drivers.

Business
3.9 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say a word about the two short debates this afternoon. In the normal way, adopting the principle that the mover is entitled to 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, I should have announced the maximum time that could be taken by each noble Lord without incurring the danger of depriving later speakers in the debate.
As such a limit would have been as much as 14 minutes in the case of the second debate, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and even longer in the case of the first, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, no such formal limits need be proposed. But I believe that the House would appreciate it if noble Lords would exercise a similar discipline voluntarily in order that the essential character of these short debates should be preserved.

Law of the Sea Treaty
3.10 p.m.
Lord Caradon Lord Caradon rose to call attention to the situation regarding the Law of the Sea Treaty; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have the privilege of raising in this House a matter of great international importance. We realise its importance when we remember that the oceans of the world make up more than 70 per cent. of the surface of the globe. It is also a joy to be able to refer in this House to an international negotiation which has been going forward for much more than a decade and which has been a very remarkable and most admirable success. The result, as we all know, was that at Montego Bay in Jamaica in December 1982, 118 nations were immediately able to sign the convention which had been worked out in the previous years and give it their full support. It was a remarkable achievement. Some people say there has been no other achievement to compare with it in international negotiation.
So we have before us a set of proposals worked out with the utmost care over a long period, dealing with a whole range of subjects. I cannot deal with them adequately this afternoon. There is a whole range of difficult and complicated questions—the rights of states having their borders on the sea; exclusive economic zones; the rights of navigation; the question of fishing rights; matters of pollution; matters of research. All these complicated matters are dealt with in the agreed report put forward over a period of more
262
than two decades of deliberation, with the result that we have before us now a book of nearly 200 pages setting out the results of the deliberations and negotiations which have been going forward successfully for so long. It is a very remarkable achievement.
If I may, I will go back to my own recollection of the General Assembly of the United Nations many years ago. We were about to go into the annual meeting of the General Assembly, which, as noble Lords know, starts in September each year. The general committee had given thought and care to the agenda for the year, and it was accepted and agreed. But I well remember that at the last moment, when we were about to go into the assembly, the representative of a very small country indeed came forward and said they had a new main matter for the General Assembly. This was greeted with general irritation. Was it necessary to go back and consider again the whole agenda of a year's deliberations on account of a request put forward by Ambassador Pardo of Malta? What was it he wanted to raise?
Ambassador Pardo of Malta said he wanted to raise the question of the deep-sea bed. This was greeted with general consternation. What was it that Ambassador Pardo wanted to say? Ambassador Pardo said he understood there were riches in the deep-sea bed in the resources of the sea. The attitude was, "Well, maybe—who can tell? What do you want to say about it?" Ambassador Pardo wanted to propose that it should be decided by the world assembly on this occasion, and without delay, that the riches of the deep-sea bed should not be used only to make the rich nations richer or merely to bring benefits to the great, rich companies that had the capacity to undertake the exploration. He wanted to propose that the riches of the deep-sea bed should be the common heritage of all mankind.
There was almost disbelief that such a proposal should be put forward. It was thought there would be a few speeches and it would be forgotten. Not at all. Ambassador Pardo was not prepared to be pushed aside. As the assembly went forward in that year we began to realise that we were going to have to vote on this extraordinary proposition. I remember the day of the vote, and I remember the vote very well. A sort of gasp went up. The vote in favour of the proposition put forward by Ambassador Pardo of Malta was accepted by 99 to nil. I thought it might be a very important day in history that the oceans of the world were going to be dealt with in future under a principle never yet accepted—the principle of the resources of the sea being the common heritage of mankind. That was the occasion which I remember so well from New York at that time.
What happened? Following that meeting of the assembly a series of committees were established over a period getting on for 15 years, during which every aspect of the question of the sea and its resources was discussed. The greatest effort was made to reach agreement by consensus. Ambassador Pardo of Malta led the discussions in the early stages. He was followed by Ambassador Aramasinghe of Sri Lanka. He died, and the discussions were followed up again by Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore, one of the most influential and effective representatives at the United Nations. I like to think that the work which

263
was done so deliberately, so successfully, was carried out under the leadership of three Commonwealth representatives from Malta, Sri Lanka and Singapore. We owe a great deal to those three remarkable, dedicated men. They pursued this matter with the utmost care, with a readiness to listen to all sides and with a determination to succeed, with the result that we saw the vote which took place at Montego Bay in Jamaica at the World Conference at the end of 1982. That was an historic achievement.
I like to tell the story of this idea—this ideology, if one likes—in regard to the greatest remaining asset of the world. It was attacked and undertaken by three remarkable men from the British Commonwealth who have led the world in establishing a convention, as we call it, which covers every aspect of the use and resources of the seas. I repeat, it was a remarkable achievement.
What happened then? Let us turn now to deal with the challenge which is made from the United States of America. The United States has sought to bring the whole of this enterprise to an end. When it came to the vote in Montego Bay, four countries voted against: the United States, Israel, Venezuela, and Turkey. In the face of those four negative votes against 118 who were in favour, there were 17 abstentions, including, I am sad and ashamed to say, an abstention by the United Kingdom.
Therefore we have a situation in which the work was done by dedicated men in the cause of the whole world. Among the provisions was the most controversial of all—that for the encouragement and control of the mining of the mineral resources of the sea. That was the one item which excited the most furious comment and to which the United States and others objected. So we are faced with the following situation. Are the United States, supported by—or not supported by, but at any rate earning the aquiescence of—the United Kingdom and other states owing perhaps particular allegiance to them, to destroy the conception which arose on that great day, when, by 99 to nil, the General Assembly of the United Nations decided that the resources of the sea should be the common heritage of mankind? Is that to be the result? Are we to see the whole thing come to a disgraceful end?
There are three points that I should like to remember in this respect. What will happen if the United States, with a few accomplices, believes that it can destroy all that has been done and that the enterprise which was brought to such a conclusion in Montego Bay should come to nothing? What will happen if the attempt to disrupt, to destroy the whole of this conception, succeeds, and if, as we have heard, the United States attempts to make a treaty not of all states, but of the few states which would be prepared to work with them? If the United States so intend, as was made very clear at Montego Bay and elsewhere, then they will excite the fiercest opposition from the great majority of the countries of the world. Therefore we wait to see what will happen.
I greatly hope that our country could make a contribution to ending the deadlock. The world has declared, and the United States has denied. It is for us very largely to lead the European opinion because in
264
the vote at least five countries from Europe voted in favour, and nearly the whole of the Commonwealth, including Canada and Australia, also voted in favour. We were struck by the fact that at Montego Bay, when it was clear that the United Kingdom was undecided, Nigeria turned on us and asked, "Is it true that the United Kingdom is to divorce itself from the Commonwealth on a matter of world importance?" Yes, it is a matter of world importance in which our part will be important.
I believe that there can still be time to reconsider because under the provisions of the convention the preparatory commission is to work until December of this year; originally it was given two years. Therefore it is not too late for our country to sign the convention and then to take a full part in the preparations for the establishment of the International Sea-Bed Authority and the tribunal (which is to be established in the Netherlands) to deal with all questions of the law of the sea. I am glad to say that the International Sea-Bed Authority will be established in Jamaica, and the International Tribunal to deal with questions arising from the new treaty, the new law, will be in the Netherlands. That is quite suitable, remembering Grotius and his leadership in requiring that the sea should not be the property of any one nation, but should be to the benefit of all.
So I would hope that our country can make a positive contribution, and I would hope, too, that it may even be possible that the United States will say, "Let us think again, let us be prepared not to deny, to thwart and to frustrate, but to co-operate and to participate". I believe that both of those things are possible, and I hope that when the noble Baroness addresses the House presently she will not rule out the possibility that while there is still time we can make a positive, instead of a negative, contribution.
In considering this matter it occurred to me that it may well be that Britannia no longer rules the waves. But surely we have not come to a stage when we should be slaves to American vetoes. Therefore I greatly hope that in this matter of the future of the seas this country can make a positive, a constructive, and a helpful contribution. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House is much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for bringing this question before us this afternoon, and for reminding us of the general shape of the history of this convention, which he himself played such a part in bringing about. Ever since it appeared that the incoming Reagan Administration were going to backtrack on this matter, we from these Benches have been asking the Government to do what they can to cause the United States to desist from that course, and to consider whether they should not sign even without the United States.
This morning I was looking up the record and I turned back more than two years, to December 1981, when, I found, we asked the Government to do what they could,
"to bring the new American Administration to their senses after what appeared to be a beginner's blunder".
The beginner's blunder has not been rectified, and so far our own complicity with that blunder has not been

265
rectified either; our composition of the blunder is compounded.
Now, what kind of convention is this? It has been signed by 132 countries. There is a limited period for signature, and this afternoon it will be my burden that we should jolly well sign before the limited period is up. It is essentially a package of rights and duties. Like all good international conventions, it contains some things for some parties, and other things for other parties; no right without a duty, no duty without a right.
Secondly, it is not just a codification of existing international law—as so many conventions are. It takes entirely new steps in the organisation of human affairs, unprecedented in other fields. The main new step is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, described so eloquently; and that relates to the authority and the tribunal dealing with mining the mineral wealth lying on the deep seabed. It does not confer any rights on any states. It cannot do that, because the high seas and the ground under them have always been, as lawyers call it, res communis, meaning the property of everyone. They have not been the property of nobody, res nullius. In the case of res nullius, anyone can go along and grab. In the case of res communis, no one can grab without general consent. The high seas have always been res communis. This convention merely declares and confirms that fact. It provides a system of administration whereby states may go along and occupy a bit of the seabed for mining purposes with general consent and to the general good.
Since the convention was opened for signature there has been a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations seeking to put right the present, we hope, temporary deadlock. The resolution calls upon all states,
"to safeguard the unified character of the convention".
That unified character is what I have just described—the rights and duties. It appeals to all states,
"to refrain from taking any action directed at undermining the convention or defeating its objects".
To abstain from signing is such an action. I should like the House to listen to the words of Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore, whose role in this matter was praised by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. He has said that,
"any attempt by any State, or group of States, to mine the resources of the deep seabed outside the Convention will incur the condemnation of the international community, as well as grave political and legal consequences".
Let us think for a moment of what those consequences might be. We will be in a world where the overwhelming majority of members of the United Nations belong to the convention. In due course, when it becomes economically possible, the rich nations want to go and mine. They do not belong to the convention. Out they go. They occupy a bit of the seabed. They commit vast economic, engineering and financial resources to the extraction and the raising of the nodules. The plant is entirely vulnerable. They are on the high seas. If anyone interferes with the operation, the decent opinion of mankind will not be on the side of the mining enterprise. It will be on the side of the interferer. It might be possible—I do not
266
know—it would certainly be plausible if the signatories of the convention, the majority of the human race, were to accuse the mining companies of a sort of piracy against the convention. At any rate, it would be a situation very far indeed from one of political, legal and even military security that will be needed by industry if they are to commit these huge resources to mining. Ambassador Koh's warning is not hot air; it is extremely concrete.
Let me turn now to the other side of the treaty which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, did not emphasise so much. I refer to the other things in the convention; the other reasons for which we want it. We want it for defence reasons. It would underpin a law that we might make preventing the operation of undersea tanks, or creepy-crawlies as they are called, on our own continental shelf. We have no means of forbidding that at the moment. It would underpin any regulations we might make to compel unknown submarines to surface in our own economic zone. It would underpin the extension of territorial water to 12 miles, which we need partly for defence reasons and partly for environmental control. We also need the underpinning of traditional navigation rights—rights of free passage, rights of innocent passage and rights of passage through international straits. If we do not sign the great embracing document that codifies all that and advances it, let us think in advance what will be our standing in international courts and tribunals compared with that of those who have signed.
It seems to us that the Prime Minister has now begun to re-examine some of the early Reagan policies with an admirably beady eye. To judge by her attitude in Hungary recently, by her emphasis on the value and importance of international law in the Grenada case, and by her way of getting out of the Lebanon, which was so much quieter and wiser than the way chosen by the United States, it seems to us that the time has come when it might be possible for the Government to reconsider their support of the United States attitude on the Law of the Sea Convention. It is the next Reagan policy that should be reviewed. I do not want to use the word "dishonourable"—it was not dishonourable, but it is a fact that after three Presidents before President Reagan had gone into the negotiations, leading from the front with a tremendous appearance of political commitment and with a great deal of specialised knowledge that only very advanced countries possess, the fourth President suddenly turned round, fired his chief negotiator and denounced the earlier commitment. The United States now seems to be grabbing the quids in this balanced arrangement, and withholding the quos.
There is no particular political beauty of wisdom in that attitude. We should not endorse it. Why are the Government endorsing it? Is it possible that they were not getting as wide a spectrum of advice as they might have been getting? There is no point in probing the advice that the Government are getting. One must take their sayings at face value. However, it seemed noticeable at one stage that Mr. MacGregor, the present chairman of the National Coal Board and formerly chairman of British Steel, was having some influence in setting the Government's attitudes. He has expounded his views in public. It was shown subsequently that they were not based on adequate

267
study of the treaty or adequate knowledge of the policies and possibilities of other countries.
There are two main things about seabed exploitation which should give us good reason to go ahead with signing now. The first is that it is certainly not an attractive economic proposition for quite a long time. The words of—who better placed than he—the chairman of the RTZ Deep Sea-Mining Enterprises recently were that it certainly will not pay this century and probably not for several decades. It is hard to see who is likely to have inquired further into the matter than that particular industrialist.
I contend that since there is nothing doing economically for a good many years, it would be wise for the nations of the world, including ourselves, to take the opportunity now of setting up a system, when there is no heat on, getting ready for the time when the heat comes on. Mr. Rifkind made what I thought was a not very impressive speech in the House of Commons two months ago saying that we could not afford to finance the international authority at the moment before there were any revenues coming in. That was a self-defeating argument. If no revenues are coming in, it is because no licences have been issued. If no licences have been issued, there is no work to be done except the setting up of the merest advance guard to get things prepared over the next period of a good many years.
The second reason that we should sign is that which I have already adumbrated. It would be very draughty for the mining exploiters in 20 or 30 years' time if we do not. What protection would be provided by the sort of mini-treaties that the United States is now proposing, not with poorer countries that could benefit, but with other rich countries and mining countries—a network of treaties among the rich and privileged nations of the world? I think it will be rather poor. As I was saying, it would be very much open to attack politically and juridically.
I note that the Japanese Government—who have a habit of knowing on which side their bread is buttered in advanced industrial technology—are already preparing the domestic legislation which they will need when they sign.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, may I just add to the noble Lord's comments on this matter that in my personal experience there is an enormous possibility for technological transfer in this area? I have been personally involved in a project known as "the ocean thermal conversion technology", in which I believe that our expertise in the United Kingdom could add enormously to developing the resources of the deep sea, and in which I believe we shall be—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking a question or making a statement?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am putting this point to the noble Lord as something that could add to his comments.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord shares my opinion that all this could be better done if
268
we were signatories to the treaty, and I thank him very much for his intervention.
Perhaps when the Minister of State comes to reply she will be able to answer a couple of questions along the line. First, now that the negotiations are over, what has happened to the inter-departmental committee in Whitehall which hacked up the negotiators? Is it still there? In our view it would be a very good thing if it were still there. Secondly, what is the present situation as regards signature and ratification among the European Community nations? On the last occasion when we inquired a year or two ago, they were divided. Is that still the case?
In conclusion, let me say that we believe that President Reagan was wrong in the first place, and he is still wrong. We believe that the Government were wrong to go along with him, and we hope that they will soon put matters right. It is probably in American interests and it is certainly in British interests that we should sign, and we hope that the Prime Minister will point this out to the President with all the clarity for which she is famous. It has been a sad interlude of short sight. Luckily, there is still time to put things right, and I hope that the Minister of State can tell us later this afternoon that the process has already begun.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Caradon, first, for his powerful and moving speech and, secondly, for giving the House, by introducing this Motion, the opportunity to debate the Law of the Sea Treaty. I would also—if I may say so on my own behalf—like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his probing speech running to the heart of much what we are to discuss.
It is not the first time for me personally to be associated with my noble friend Lord Caradon on maritime matters. I sat alongside him some years ago on the Security Council when he was our greatly respected Ambassador at the United Nations and he introduced the Beira Resolution in an attempt, by means of the Royal Navy, to enforce oil sanctions against the illegal Smith régime.
As a major trade-dependent maritime nation, Britain has a vital interest in the achievement of a body of international rules for using the sea whose legitimacy is recognised throughout the world. We are one of the countries most vulnerable to the absence of a generally accepted régime of the sea—over three lost "cod wars" have brought that home to us. In the light of that, and of other considerations that have been referred to already, it is deeply regrettable that the Government have failed to sign the Law of the Sea Convention, particularly in view of the fact—as my noble friend Lord Caradon has said—that no less than 118 states have already signed the convention. It is significant that a greatly concerned and well-informed body—namely, the General Council of British Shipping—has stressed that the convention's provisions on freedom of navigation and pollution are a considerable advance on the present régime. The council points out by way of example—and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has identified one or two himself—that they establish the width of the territorial sea at 12 miles. A number of countries claim limits in

269
excess of this, and in some instances 200 miles. They define innocent passage and, most importantly, make it clear that coastal states cannot, unless they are implementing international agreements, make regulations with regard to design, construction, equipment and manning affecting foreign ships in innocent passage. They set up a regime for straits which gives a right of transit which cannot be suspended. They establish a régime for archipelagoes. They impose duties on states to preserve the marine environment. They provide for the settlement of disputes and the rapid release of ships when security is available. Those are all most valuable provisions which are substantially lacking at this time, and which certainly need enforcement. They are all provisions of immense value to all who go down to the sea in ships.
As I understand it, the Government's main ground for not signing the convention is because of its deep seabed mining provisions. This, of course, has been the main concern of the powerful mining lobby in the United States—to which my noble friend Lord Caradon has referred—which has made a great deal of the running in the opposition to the convention.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have kindly supplied us with a note which states—and I hope that the noble Baroness has been supplied with a copy of it—that they:
"are working to try to obtain improvements at the Preparatory Commission set up to prepare for the deep seabed mining aspects of the convention".
However, as I understand it, the difficulty is that, as we have refused to sign the convention, we shall have no vote in the proceedings of the Preparatory Commission. We have, to that extent, diminished our own power to influence the course of the deliberations.
In any event, it is by no means clear that this country's mining and mineral access interests would be substantially impaired by our acceptance of the convention's proposals. Those who are expert in the field seem to think that they will not be impaired. Secondly, there is reason to believe—and I think that the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, touched upon this—that, for economic reasons, deep seabed mining is not likely to be a commercial proposition for a very long time to come. Indeed, the General Council of British Shipping has concluded that the prospect that any mining will take place in this century is now remote. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred to the views of the chairman of RTZ on this matter. I was struck to know that both BP and Shell, which are potential miners, consider that safe navigation outweighs any potential mining benefit, and for us, as a seafaring nation, that is a primary consideration; that is where the vital major British interest lies.
We stand to gain rather than to lose by this convention. It represents a very serious effort by the whole international community over the prolonged period from 1973 to 1982 to create a world order in shipping which is already acceptable to the vast majority of states. They have also worked to thresh out an agreed regime governing an important part of the earth's resources. If that attempt proves unsuccessful largely because of the opposition of interested elements in the United States—and I understand that the Administration of that country is by no means unanimous in its opposition to signature of the
270
convention—there is a very real danger that governments will become extremely disillusioned about the possibility of resolving their differences and dealing with some major problems of our planet through negotiation.
The alternative to fulfilment of the convention and acceptance of it is fragmentation of the law in this important field and an increasing slide towards conflict and towards the sort of considerations which, as my noble friend said in introducing the famous motion in the United Nations in 1967, led the ambassador to Malta to do what he did. The attitude of submission to the course of separateness, of refusal to join in this world endeavour, could well spread beyond the confines of the law of the sea. If this great effort, which the vast majority of the nations of the world have joined in, is frustrated by powerful single interests, the future for the world will be very serious indeed.
I am striking a somewhat sombre note on this matter because I think it is right to do so. There is still time for this country—this nation of, above all, seafaring men—to redeem the errors of the past and now, before the end of December, to sign this convention and to take its traditional place as proponents of the international law of the sea and of the rule of law itself.
3.53 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I should like to add my words of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for raising this important subject. It is, indeed, most important, and not the least so because the Law of the Sea Treaty sets out to regulate the development of the vast mineral resources which are known to exist on the floor of the ocean. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has spoken eloquently that these should become a common heritage, and who can deny that hope and aspiration? But I fear that the clauses of the Law of the Sea Treaty as currently drafted will effectively deny these resources.
What are the facts? There are immense quantities of nodules in the middle of the Pacific, four-and-a-half kilometres down, containing huge mineralisations-up to some 30 per cent. Unfortunately, nine-tenths of the mineralisation is in manganese, which is readily available in great quantities on land; but the remaining 3 per cent.—nickel, copper and cobalt—represents, in the case of nickel, five times the known resources on land; and the copper and cobalt are of vast world importance.
There are many problems in bringing the metals to market, and the first and most important, and the most difficult, is to get them up out of the sea. The problem has been studied and worked on by five consortia of mining companies and, indeed, nationalised companies. Here I should declare an interest as I am a director of a Belgian company, Union Minière, which is one of the participants in a consortium. They have spent a great deal of money and have made some progress. They have succeeded in lifting about 500 tonnes of nodules, which is no mean achievement, using a method of suction rather like a vast elephant trunk sucking them from the deep. But 500 tonnes is minimal when compared to the requirement for a commercial operation, which is 10,000 tonnes a day or 3 million tonnes a year.

271
There is a great amount of work to be done. It has been estimated that it might take 10 years of effort and development to get a commercial operation started. But, in fact, all work has now stopped, for which there are two reasons. The first concerns the commercial factors of the market for metals. It would require an increase of some 50 per cent. in the price of these metals, as well as a conviction that this would continue, which is very different from an immediate rise, to make it commercially possible.
Secondly, there are the provisions of the Law of the Sea Treaty. A commercial enterprise is estimated to require perhaps 250 million dollars of development and an investment of one-and-a-half billion dollars. I do not think that any commercial enterprise or group of companies will endeavour to undertake any such thing without the security of tenure which should come from the Law of the Sea Treaty. I do not believe that the limited national companies would give those assurances.
There are four major disadvantages in the Law of the Sea Treaty as at present drafted. As your Lordships know, the Law of the Sea Treaty creates an authority to administer, and the authority creates an enterprise which itself would become a mining company. The first difficulty is that any company or group of companies signing the treaty would be required to turn all their technology over to the enterprise. That is mandatory. Unless they made it available, they would not be allowed to use it themselves.
Secondly, any area which it is proposed to develop would have to be shared with the enterprise half and half, and the enterprise would take the best half—it has a right to choose. Thirdly, there is control of production with the object, in part, to control the market for metals. Finally, there is a very heavy levy based upon the content of minerals, ranging from 5 per cent. to 12 per cent. of their value; or the alternative of a lower levy on the minerals, 2 per cent. to 4 per cent., and a levy on ultimate profits ranging from 35 per cent. to 70 per cent.
I am a commercial man, and collectively these are damning. Although I believe that commercial enterprises can take a long view and that efforts would continue to develop the possibilities of mining from the sea bed, with the Law of the Sea Treaty in its present form nothing will be done. It seems to follow that if the Law of the Sea Treaty is accepted in its present form, it will in effect deny the advantages which the nodules may one day bring to the world at large. Therefore, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are entirely right to withhold their signature from the Law of the Sea Treaty in its present form and to continue in their endeavours to achieve realistic changes in the clauses affecting, in particular, deep sea mining.
3.59 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that it was a tremendous pleasure and privilege to listen to the superb speech of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, whom I shall always associate with his splendid achievements in Jordan and Palestine (as it then was), and subsequently at the
272
United Nations. But this afternoon the noble Lord has asked us to examine this very important convention on the law of the sea, and although I am no expert in international law, for many years of my diplomatic career—in fact, intermittently from 1952 to 1958 and then continuously from 1963 to 1967—I was involved in the delimitation and demarcation of frontiers in an area which some call the Persian Gulf, which others call the Arabian Gulf and which yet others—myself among them—refer to merely as the Gulf. It is in the context of frontier demarcations, and also the settlement of disputes arising from them, that I would give the most warm welcome to this new convention. Above all, I should like to emphasise—and I hope to bring this out subsequently in my speech—that it is a great improvement on its predecessor, the convention of 1958 which stemmed from the first Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva of that year.
Before I start talking about frontiers, I cannot refrain from commenting on two articles in this new convention which immediately caught my eye. They are Articles 99 and 100, which deal with the transport of slaves and the repression of piracy. However out of date such provisions may appear today, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it was in 1853 that Her Majesty's Government concluded what was called the Treaty of Perpetual Truce with certain states in the Gulf which subsequently became the Trucial States and now are the United Arab Emirates.
That was more than 100 years ago, but in 1953, when I started working in that area, slavery was still quite common; domestic slavery, even a little slave trading, and piracy too. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it was only a few months ago that slavery was finally abolished in Mauritania. I well remember when I was in the Trucial States, as they were then, that any slave who wanted to claim his freedom had only to go and grasp the flagpole of the British Agency. Similarly, I am delighted to see that in Article 100 of this new convention any slave who boards a ship, no matter what flag it may be flying, can, ipso facto, claim his or her freedom.
I must return to the frontiers. Whereas the Arabs of the Gulf area had clear and well thought-out ideas about their claims to oases in the desert and similarly to islands at sea, nevertheless the Western concept of a frontier as a straight line or a curved line, or even a line at all, was totally alien to their thinking. So it was that whereas in the desert all such settlements allowed the bedouin to roam at will seeking vegetation, grazing for their camels, and so on, similarly at sea the early settlements allowed the pearl divers and the fishermen to work the various pearling banks in the areas of Qatar, Bahrain, and the Trucial States. Similarly the 1958 Saudi-Bahrain seabed agreement provided Bahrain with pearling rights within the continental shelf of Abu Dhabi.
But whereas such arrangements were of course admirably suited to the needs of the bedouin and the simple fishermen and pearl divers, they were totally inadequate when the oil companies—British Petroleum, the Iraq Petroleum Company, and subsequently other companies—started exploring for oil in 1949. A large number of problems arose which I need not deal with now; but it is interesting to note that the problems of those of us concerned with these

273
settlements were to some extent simplified by the extraordinary habit of the bedouin of naming almost every rock and prominent feature like sand dunes, and even trees. I remember on one occasion spending no fewer than eight days trying to determine the ownership of one crucial tree. Similarly at sea certain areas had their names quite apart from rocks, shoals, reefs, and so on.
One of the earliest settlements that was reached was that between Qatar and Bahrain in 1947. This is generally considered to have been an unsatisfactory settlement. I would put to you that it was unsatisfactory because there were no clear guidelines on which to work. Thus, the settlement has been—and I think I am right in saying still is—disputed. Here I come to what I consider another important point, and this was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. Among the other admirable provisions in this treaty we see in Articles 186 to 191 and 279 to 299 admirable, comprehensive provisions for the settlement of disputes. There is even provision for the establishment of a seabed disputes chamber. What a splendid idea! By contrast with this somewhat unsatisfactory settlement, the 1969 Abu Dhabi Qatar continental shelf settlement was much more satisfactory, and I think the reason for this was that those responsible for it had the guidelines of the 1958 convention.
In the settlement of all these frontiers the definition of the continental shelf was an important consideration, though not the sole one. There was of course the consideration of the median lines and other similar considerations. But here again I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this new convention is a great improvement on that of 1958. In particular, I refer to Articles 76 to 85. But of course when it came to settle seabed frontiers on the basis of the continental shelf, all sorts of problems arose. For example, there was the island of Sir Abu Na'ir, which although belonging to Sharjah lay within the continental shelf of Abu Dhabi. Indeed, the whole problem of settlements in the Gulf waters was greatly complicated by the presence of a multitude of islands, and I could refer briefly to the problems over the ownership of Abu Musa, Tanb, and Nabiu Tanb, which although lying on the Arab side of the Gulf were claimed by Iran. However, I shall not weary your Lordships with more names of almost unpronounceable islands.
I want now to examine one further area which again was touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and it is another important aspect of this important matter, and that is the breadth of the territorial sea. Under Article 3 of the new convention every state has the right to establish a territorial sea limit extending to 12 nautical miles from the base line, which is defined as the low water line. Traditionally of course this limit has been three miles. I may be wrong in this, but I am told that this springs from the range of land-based cannons firing at enemy warships.
When this question of seabed limits was discussed at the Geneva Conference of 1958, the first Law of the Sea Conference, no agreement could be reached at all because different states had different ideas. This gave rise to all sorts of exaggerated claims. I could perhaps refer to the claim of Libya, advanced in October 1973,
274
to the whole of the Gulf of Sine. This claim would have extended the line to a total distance of 150 miles at its broadest point from the base line.
To return to the Gulf, almost all of the frontiers have now been settled, I am glad to say, with the exception of a small area which lies immediately to the north of the former Saudi-Kuwait neutral zone. This is an area in which the frontiers of Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran lie in close proximity. I feel strongly that if Her Majesty's Government were to sign this new convention, its provisions would be of the greatest help in settling this small remaining area. I would also put to your Lordships that the new convention could be of the greatest value to the Saudi-Sudanese Red Sea joint committee which is now sitting, working out the problems of the exploitation of the Red Sea.
One further point: noble Lords have referred before—and I believe other noble Lords will refer subsequently in their speeches—to the attitude of the Americans. Perhaps I should draw attention to two interesting articles which appeared in the New Yorker dated 1st and 8th August, written by a man who calls himself a lawyer-at-large. This distinguished lawyer, who has examined this new convention in great detail, has come to the definite conclusion that it would be in the interests of the United States to sign it.
I will end as I started by expressing the warmest possible welcome to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and expressing the hope that Her Majesty's Government will soon see their way to signing this most important and comprehensive convention.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, on his good fortune in the ballot and on his most eloquent speech. He described graphically to us the origins of the United Nations declaration and then the convention which has been negotiated. Speakers in the debate so far have made it plain that the part of the convention on the deep-sea mining regime is the most contentious subject which has been under negotiation. This, briefly, is dealing with the resources of the floors of the oceans beyond the continental shelves and beyond individual nations' claims, such as in exclusive economic zones of 200-miles. We are here dealing with the high seas and international waters.
But that is only one part of the convention. The attempts to attain a treaty by consensus on the whole range of subjects needing codification of the law of the sea has failed. This is unfortunate, but the risk of failure has been apparent for some years, because most of the participants in the United Nations conference have adopted the attitude of all or nothing. They were not prepared to accept parts of the convention dealing with different subjects unless all the other proposed parts were included, too. Progress will now inevitably be slow.
There is a bizarre paradox here. The developing countries, by insisting on unsuitable international regimes for deep sea mining, may deprive themselves and the rest of the world for longer than necessary of a new source of minerals. The most developed industrial countries and their consortia of mining companies, which are those likely to possess the

275
technology in due course, are not likely to embark on major operations in what appear to be unfavourable circumstances dominated by an inappropriate international regime. The paradox is magnified by the fact that all these countries, both industrial as well as developing, have accepted that the value of these seabed resources should be shared among all the nations of the world as international property. Every plan that has been made, including the legislation that has passed through this House, has included arrangements for money to be set aside for the rest of the world.
A great deal of agreement on other subjects has been reached by virtually the whole of the world and by coastal states in particular. The pity is that it may now take time for these agreements to be translated into action.
I should today like to concentrate on the parts of the convention applying to the territorial sea and the related subject of freedom of navigation. These sections are of great importance to this country. We depend upon overseas trade more than any other industrial nation. We are a leading shipping nation, not only in helping that overseas trade but in the cross-trades between other countries. On 15th November last, the President of the General Council of British Shipping, in a letter to The Times, argued that the Government should sign the convention. He argued that the immediate gains from which Britain would then benefit would outweigh the difficulties concerning the seabed regime, for which there was still plenty of time. The Government may see overriding objections to that. If they do, I suggest that they should pursue other means.
In reply to a question from me on 2nd December 1982, when he had been repeating a Statement made in another place, my noble friend Lord Belstead said that the Government could consider the extension of territorial waters to 12 miles freely and that this would not be tied to the convention. However, there is an essential quid pro quo: that is that there should be worldwide agreement on the freedom of navigation within a 12-mile territorial sea. But that has also been satisfactorily agreed within the convention. Those countries who in the past have not been prepared to accept free passage through such international straits have in this convention been prepared to agree to arrangements which are satisfactory to the United Kingdom and also, I believe, to the United States.
Some coastal states now claim 12 miles as a territorial sea. A few claim even more than that; but the United Kingdom does not recognise more than three miles. Nor does the United States. Our ships, as a matter of expediency, must often act as if the 12-mile territorial sea claim is valid when they are sailing in those waters. Thus we have the worst of both worlds. Our vessels have to comply with a 12-mile territorial sea, in effect, when they are in other parts of the world, but at home we have simply a three-mile territorial sea. If we were able to extend it to 12 miles, that would be especially useful to protect our coastlines from pollution.
I will not go into the subject of pollution in detail now. We have discussed it in previous debates in your Lordships' House. The Royal Commission on
276
Environmental Pollution, in its report over two years ago, emphatically recommended—I think it was its main recommendation—that the United Kingdom should extend its territorial sea from three miles to 12 miles. This, together with the change of emphasis in the convention to port state jurisdiction, would enable us to reduce significantly oil slicks and other pollution round our coasts. As some countries are already claiming a 12-mile territorial sea and all the others have agreed to accept this, can this not be carried out by everyone coming into line and treating it as customary law?
I would remind your Lordships that this was done for the 200-mile fishing limit in 1976 and 1977. That was also something that had been agreed during the negotiation of this convention. The fishing, maritime and coastal nations were all in agreement, and the important thing was that it should be done at the same time so that everybody suffered the disadvantages and gained the benefits at the same moment. That was done in extending our fishing limits to 200 miles at the same time as all the other nations of the world. We were anticipating this convention.
It is clear that the same thing could be done for the territorial seas, but it would probably have to be done, too, for the system of freedom of navigation. In the convention that system consists of agreement on a regime of transit passage. This would mean that when the 12-mile territorial sea was recognised, a strait of less than 24 miles would be regarded as an international route. There are even improvements so far as naval countries are concerned. In particular, the convention makes simpler than in the past the passage of warships, particularly submarines, and also the over-flying of aircraft. This is important for the navies of the free world. I presume, therefore, that the Government would wish that the general recognition of a 12-mile territorial sea should take place at the same time as the introduction of an agreed arrangement on transit passage.
It seems that the procedures for the bringing into effect of these arrangements under the convention, including signature and ratification, are complicated and slow. If that proves to be the case, I urge the Government to seek other ways of applying what has already been agreed by all concerned: for example, to examine the prospect of establishing as customary law both the 12-mile territorial sea and the transit passage system. I know that the difficulty here is that some nations are not prepared to apply separate and self-contained parts of the treaty until the international seabed mining régime is also agreed and ready to be adopted; but I believe that that attitude is mistaken. It is not in their interests to delay parts of the convention where everything has been agreed. Seabed mining, as some speakers have already indicated, is unlikely to happen in the near future.
When we were discussing this nine years ago in your Lordships' House—and I remember that well, because I made my maiden speech in this House on this subject from the Opposition Front Bench nine years ago—at that time it seemed that deepsea mining might be much nearer; but because of the recession and for other reasons it is clear that it is some way off. Therefore, there is time for further negotiation and changes. To deny the maritime and coastal states the

277
benefits of agreements already achieved on the territorial sea and the transit passage régime would be detrimental to the interests of most of the countries of the world. That point was recognised in the similar case of the extension of fishing limits in 1976. I hope that the British Government can, with like-minded nations, convince the others that the expected advance in these matters, an important advance, should not be deliberately delayed.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, the most important note of emphasis that my noble friend Lord Caradon and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones struck in their most valid introduction to this short debate was that the matter is of first-rate importance when one questions the future of the oceans of the world. It is important to all the peoples of the world. It is, I feel, of particular importance to the British people because, I submit, the United Kingdom Government have played a somewhat shamefaced role in the matter. That we started off reasonably well in adopting some positive positions is obvious, and it was sensible to follow certain logical paths. My noble friend Lord Caradon referred to his joy at being able to indicate more than a decade of devoted and successful international negotiations.
It was widely welcomed in the world when the result of the work by so many was signed by representatives of 118 nations at the convention for the establishment of a new law of the sea held in December 1982 at Montego Bay in Jamaica. It was a great and unique achievement. In a world where negative and potentially destructive efforts are on occasion lauded to the skies, it was wonderful to act for peaceful efforts and wide agreement. The very essence of negotiation, surely, is much give and take in the interests of gaining great prizes for all mankind. The details set before your Lordships by my noble friend quite rightly traced the early initiatives 17 years ago at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York.
It is unfortunate that the understanding of the major world issues involved should have been lost. So much has been done by our Governments to diminish our support for the role of the United Nations in its peace-seeking and peace-keeping in many parts of the world. Recent and current events in the Middle East have made it patently clear that British interests are often best served by the positive use of the United Nations' organs. The work put in to establish the law of the sea was a classic example. In my opinion, we have a fresh chance to enhance our standing in the great forum of the nations by seeking to return to our original positions on the law of the sea and to adopt the convention urgently.
My Lords, I have consciously avoided a repetitive journey into the massive detail of the brave efforts of so many to establish the United Nations law of the sea convention and the provisions relating to deep sea mining. I continue to share the view expressed by Mr. Denis Healey on behalf of the official Opposition in another place on 2nd December 1982, when the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Rifkind, had explained the Government's refusal to adopt the convention. Mr. Healey said that Mr. Rifkind's statement was
278
utterly unacceptable; that the Government's decision should be regarded as contrary to international and British interests.
The years of work in preparing and negotiating the convention represent a massive effort and a giant step towards the noble aim of seeking one world. Now, more than ever, we in the United Kingdom need to recast our policy to strike out independently, as has been indicated by a number of noble Lords in this debate, in defence of United Nations efforts to fulfil its fundamental purposes. In this, as in so many other fields, surely, opportunity now knocks loudly. Actions are needed, not negative word play. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I speak from some experience of international law as it comes before our courts? We had a great question a few years ago as to how international law was formed and how it could be changed. That was the Trendtex case. Some people said that when international law was formed it was static and could not be changed at all, as, for instance, the three-mile territorial limit which was arranged in the 18th or 19th century owing to the length which could be controlled by the guns ashore; and the three-mile territorial limit was founded on that antiquated basis. It was said that that international law, once established, could not be changed.
We held in the Court of Appeal, and I think it has been generally accepted, that international law is formed by a general consensus and can be changed by a general consensus of opinion. Whether it is juries, governments or whatever it may be, it is the general consensus which should form and change international law. That is why I would commend very much that this Government should ratify this convention as a whole, because it is to be the embodiment of a consensus of international law on the most important sphere in which international law operates. Take that three-mile limit: we had to consider it when we had the case from the Gulf, which my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has mentioned regarding the island of Abu Musa and the sovereignty in regard to it—
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, Tanb and Nabiu Tanb.
Lord Denning: My Lords, my noble friend has mentioned it. There it was: was it a three-mile limit or was it a 12-mile limit? All those points came into account, and it is perfectly plain to me, whatever the convention says, that the general consensus of the nations now is for a 12-mile limit. But it needs this convention to give it force. Then as regards passage by sea, our laws have had to be advised by the courts. I hope that they will stand water, but we want them recognised by all countries, and in order to get them recognised by all countries we must ratify this convention.
As regards the continental shelf, how important that could be: and what are the right ways of dealing with it? On all these matters there must be a convention and a consensus in order to form international law so that we do not have these continual disputes between

279
individuals or, as it may be, between the great oil companies or between states. There must be a consensus, a convention, on international law to make it clear for everybody. That is why the great merit of this convention is the overwhelming support which it has had, save on one important topic no doubt—deep mining. How important it is! I would give up all those difficulties in order to get certainty over the whole realm of the law; and here we have the opportunity.
As regards deep sea mining, goodness knows how many years we will have to wait for that! I would urge, if I may, in support of my noble friend Lord Caradon, first, please, ratify the convention at all costs. But if you do not do that, make it plain to the world that this country adheres to all the principles of it except the deep sea mining one. If we all show that we agree with the terms of the convention, it will gradually become international law.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to intervene very briefly and I am grateful for having been allowed a short time to do so. There are two issues here: one is the broad political international issue which was dealt with so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in introducing this Motion; and secondly there is the commercial and technological issue. Having been involved in some of the technology of producing energy out of deep seas that has been developed in this country, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she replies to say whether she believes, in this transfer of technology and in using the technology that has been developed here, that we would not be in a better position to do that by signing this convention than by not signing it. We have in Britain a great wealth of expertise. We have explored the deep sea. We have now developed ways in which the deep sea can yield up new resources for the benefit of the world. Would we not be better off if we joined with the rest of the world in signing this convention than if we tried to go on our own? That is the specific issue I should like to raise.
4.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and to this very interesting debate on the law of the sea. At the beginning, I should like to make clear that the United Kingdom would like to see a comprehensive regime on marine matters which was acceptable to all, and that we had hoped that the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea would produce a text which could be adopted by consensus. As the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said, there was a unanimous vote of 99 to zero in 1967 for the first resolution on the seabed beyond national jurisdiction; this broad support was maintained in 1970, when a resolution on the principles governing this area of the seabed was adopted. It envisaged that an international regime would be established by "an international treaty generally agreed upon".
On many issues which came before the Law of the Sea Conference from 1973 onwards, a general
280
consensus was maintained and a general understanding that it was appropriate to deal with these issues in a single convention. We are all conscious of the great contribution made by distinguished presidents to whom the noble Lord has referred. But unfortunately, in the late stages, this consensus was not maintained. Agreement was not reached on the provisions relating to deep seabed mining. The text of the convention was put to a vote in which the United Kingdom abstained. In the course of the debate I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the numbers of those who had signed the convention: 132 countries have signed the convention and eight states have ratified it.
The United Kingdom's position remains as set out in my noble friend Lord Belstead's Statement of 2nd December 1982, made shortly before the convention was opened for signature. There is much in the convention that is helpful: for example, the provisions relating to navigation, the continental shelf and pollution. But for the United Kingdom the convention's deep sea mining regime is unacceptable as it stands. The United Kingdom cannot participate in the seabed regime on the present terms, and for that reason the United Kingdom cannot sign the convention unless a satisfactory regime for deep seabed mining can be obtained. I listened with great interest to the words of my noble friend Lord Hood on this subject. It has not been our practice to sign a convention where there is not a present prospect of our ratifying the current text.
In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, inferred that we were simply following the United States in this line of argument. I should like to assure him that this is not the case and that as I continue with my remarks I shall set out the reasons why we have taken this view. The provisions which deal with deep seabed mining are highly complex and contain important undesirable features. The proposed seabed regime contemplates a disproportionately weighty structure for the International Seabed Authority. This might have virtually universal membership, with an assembly that would meet annually, a council, subsidiary organs and a secretariat. It would produce an over-elaborate and expensive system for regulating what, in practice, will be a very small number of deep seabed mining operations. The needs of the industry are, in any event, not yet fully understood. The necessary technology is still being developed. Although I appreciate very much the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his earlier intervention and in his later remarks, that is the advice I have been given. It is therefore difficult to draw up fully detailed conditions for these operations.
The international organisation known as the Enterprise, which would carry out mining operations for the authority, would do so on privileged and costly terms. The initial industrial and administrative costs of the Enterprise would be financed by the states parties to the convention. It would cost at least £1,000 million to set up a full commercial operation, and the United Kingdom share of this would be of the order of £50 million. If the technology for the operations of the Enterprise were not available on the open market. it would be compulsorily acquired from commercial

281
operators. Commercial operators who wished to obtain an authorisation from the authority to engage in deep seabed mining operations would be obliged to provide and explore an additional fully explored mine site for the Enterprise or for developing countries to exploit. The output of operators would be controlled by the authority and high licensing fees would be charged. The undesirable regulatory principles for this regime and the provision for compulsory transfer of technology could set damaging precedents for future negotiations on industrial matters. Another serious flaw lies in the provisions for adopting amendments in a review conference to be convened 15 years after the start of seabed operations. We cannot accept a system that would be open to change, as the convention would allow, even if all states which had a direct interest in seabed mining voted against such a change.
Support for this régime would require a very large financial commitment, not only from states but also from commercial operators. With the seabed mining provisions unaltered and in force, the cost of ratification for the United Kingdom would be between £3.5 million and £8 million for fixed administrative costs and £1.5 million to 1.8 million per annum for running administrative costs, in addition to the cost of the Enterprise's mining site. These figures could increase by 33 per cent. if the United States maintained its position of non-involvement. For the operators, if the return on investment was as low as 5 per cent. the authority, under the present regime, would take 40 per cent. of this. If the return for the operators was 20 per cent., the authority would eventually take 70 per cent. of this—again a point which was made by my noble friend Lord Hood. This burden, and the complexity and over-regulatory nature of the régime, would be likely to discourage investment. Far from producing wealth to be shared out, therefore, the present minng provisions may well prevent any advantage resulting from the potential benefits from the seabed.
What is important is not so much the intention behind the convention's mining system, of sharing among all nations the mineral wealth of the seabed, but whether in practice it would achieve this. Very often, those who put forward adherence to the convention as a factor for stability and a constructive approach to international relations argue on the basis of the non-controversial aspects of the convention—aspects with which, as I have already indicated, the United Kingdom is in agreement—and the intentions behind the mining regime without due consideration of the practical difficulties which this régime could create. As the mining régime now stands, it might remove the incentive to carry out this costly and novel type of operation and remove the profitability on which the sharing of benefits would depend.
I have already indicated that the United Kingdom is not simply following the United States in her policy on this matter. We are not alone in finding these elements unacceptable, because 37 other countries have not signed the convention. Most of the leading industrialised countries, including many Community countries, have objections. One of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, put to me related to the position of the Community countries. I can confirm that five Community members—France, Ireland,
282
Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands,—have signed the convention, while five others—the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg—have not. The other European non-signatories, and several of the signatories, are critical of the deep seabed mining provisions of the convention. These countries, like the United Kingdom and unlike the United States, are attending the preparatory commission. Our involvement with the commission's work shows that the United Kingdom has not turned its back on the convention hut is seeking to improve the the deep sea mining régime. The United Kingdom wishes to work with the international community to achieve a system for seabed mining which is generally acceptable and workable and to bring about generally agreed provisions for regulating marine matters. It is not too late to do this, although clearly it will not be easy. Some solutions may be found through rules adopted in the preparatory commission which has been established to implement the seabed aspects of the convention.
Perhaps at this point it might be helpful if I answered the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about the territorial sea—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves deep sea mining, may I say that she has used a pretty effective sledgehammer to squash the only sapling which exists? Can she tell the House anything about what kind of mining régime the United Kingdom would welcome?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that I could accept the opening statement of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The points I have made are very real points, which were confirmed in the very interesting speech of my noble friend Lord Hood. I said that we are continuing to work for a solution which would enable deep sea mining to take place, but without the undesirable practical effects which the current suggestions allow.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what, though, will the solution be?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into the details of this solution. However, it is perfectly clear that there is considerable opposition to the present solution. This gives me an opportunity to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones: the suggestion that some companies believe that the present situation is all right. I am able to confirm that the Government have sought the views of a number of bodies and organisations with interests in the various topics covered by the convention. Some of them have interests in more than one area. Parts of the convention are attractive to them, while other parts of the convention are unattractive to them. However, we are not aware of any United Kingdom body with a deep seabed mining interest which does not consider that Part XI, as presently drafted, is unsatisfactory, and we are not aware of any such United Kingdom body which would wish to operate under the régime established by that part. We have received no request or advice to sign a convention in order that a United

283
Kingdom company with a seabed mining interest might take advantage of the provisions enabling pioneer investors to be registered or otherwise to operate under the convention.
To return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about the territorial sea, we are continuing to examine the extension of the United Kingdom's territorial sea in the context of the outcome of the law of the sea conference. The question of territorial sea is only one aspect of the linked questions of the law of the sea.
We have been considering and making preparations for an extension to 12 miles. We hope to introduce this with other changes in the context of a satisfactory outcome of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. This would always have been the most satisfactory context in which to make such an extension—especially in connection with the related questions of the straits to which my noble friend also referred. Extension to 12 miles has the effect that a number of important straits become territorial sea across their whole width, and the convention takes full account of this. Extension of the territorial sea and its implications is only one of the interlinked issues of the law of the sea which we have to keep under review as the situation develops.
Other solutions may well involve a change in what is currently envisaged in the convention, and it may be necessary to find new mechanisms for accomplishing that kind of change. It is our hope that other states will think it worth while continuing to seek solutions which establish a seabed régime that will attract those with the capacity to undertake seabed operations, and which will ensure that within that framework mineral resources are in fact put into circulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked one other specific question, which was concerned with interdepartmental machinery. I should like to confirm that interested departments continue to consult on this subject.
With those aims in mind, a United Kingdom delegation attended the two meetings held last year in Kingston, Jamaica, of the Preparatory Commission. In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, referred to that body. I should like to confirm that the Preparatory Commission is responsible for working out the technical and procedural provisions on deep seabed mining contained in the Law of the Sea Convention. It is our aim to achieve a realistic, practical and cost-effective regime, and we feel that we can best start doing so in the Preparatory Commission.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Minister not agree that our standing and power to influence the decisions of the Preparatory Commission are diminished by our failure to sign, and therefore by our failure to enjoy the right to vote on any particular proposal?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am happy to say that I am about to come to that point. As a signatory to the Final Act of the Law of the Sea Conference, the United Kingdom is entitled to participate fully in the work of the commission—although, as the noble and learned
284
Lord has said, not to vote. It is true that we are observers, but we have the right as signatories to participate fully. Our position as observers should not, we believe, be a serious constraint on our work at the commission.
The United Kingdom's representatives have explained to other delegations the difficulties we have with the present mining régime. In 1983 the Preparatory Commission completed its procedural and organisational work. We shall be taking part in the meetings to be held this year, starting in March, when the commission is due to adopt its work programme and start substantive work. We shall continue there with our efforts to secure improvements to the seabed mining régime, working in conjunction with other countries who share our concerns.
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate. I will certainly read it again to note the very important points which have been made. I should again like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for introducing the debate this afternoon.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I certainly wish to thank the noble Baroness for her comments and for illustrating the advantages of progressing in negotiation as opposed to the rejection which has been the attitude of the United States Government from the beginning of the present Administration in the United States. If we are to throw away this opportunity after 17 years, throughout which time we have been able to participate, and refuse to sign the convention and to enter the full negotiations which it will open up to us, then we shall be making one of the major mistakes of our time.
I greatly hope that the noble Baroness, for whom I have the very greatest of respect, will be able to convince the Cabinet (and I look forward to the day) that they were wrong to follow the American lead and that it would be better now to sign and negotiate, and to get on with the job in co-operation with the rest of the world, instead of making our country one that follows the United States in the rejection of a great idea which has still to be put into its final form. I hope that we shall be prepared to sign and work, and I believe that the debate which has taken place today has been of very great benefit. I have confidence in the noble Baroness that she will report on our debate and will achieve the results which both she and we wish to see. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Western Isles Islands Council (Kallin Pier, Harbour Jurisdiction) 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.

Administration of Metropolitan Areas
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to call attention to the study by the Institute of Local Government Studies

285
The Government and Administration of Metropolitan Areas in Western Democracies; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The study referred to is of 13 metropolitan areas in eight Western countries—seven European countries and Canada; that is, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Canada, Spain, France, Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany. The countries concerned and their intermediate levels of government between local and national government are set out in Table 1, and the comparable data are set out in Table 2—both on page 52 of the report. From these two tables it can be seen at a glance that not only do the countries themselves differ greatly but the type and size of regional and other intermediate levels of government also differ. If one includes the United Kingdom under Table 1 a further variation is introduced.
The purpose of the survey on which the report is based is not an attempt to establish the case for a common system of local government—heaven forbid! Nor is its purpose to compare in a qualitative way one country's system with another country's system. Its purpose is to look at some of the underlying trends and characteristics which have led to the establishment of metropolitan authorities in such diverse countries with their different histories and different attitudes. As the report points out on page 1:
"There is much in common between the historical processes through which metropolitan problems have developed in different western countries during the last quarter century".
The report refers to the rapid urbanisation and industrial growth around old-established centres of commerce and industry, leading to social and economic problems which no suitable authority with adequate resources was available to solve. In particular, it refers to the extension of sewerage systems, rent systems, traffic problems and the rational use of land. These were of course the very problems which led to the reorganisation of local government structures in the United Kingdom in the early 1970s. But let me say at once that in introducing this debate I do so not as a local government person but as a user of local government services, and as one who wishes to see a continuity of historical development and connections, of cultural values and of local democracy, as well as efficient and economic services.
There are many in your Lordships' House who, through their own experience of and responsibility in the administration of local government, will understand the structures and the problems of the metropolitan authorities referred to in the survey much better than I do. Indeed, I must confess to finding the survey of local government structures in other countries not easy (shall we say?) to understand. If I had previously thought our own structure complicated I now see it in a different light. Perhaps this is one of the values of a comparative survey such as this.
But I also speak as one who possesses a sense of identity with the authority in which I live, and this I think is of great importance in the development of any unit of government. This sense of identity does not arise from the mere fact that the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County, in which I live, has in the short
286
space of 10 years become a very effective and efficient instrument of local government, which any objective examination of all the relevant circumstances would show. It has deeper historical, geographical and cultural roots. Let me hasten to add that in referring to the geography of West Yorkshire I am not complacent that the last word has been said on the extent of the boundaries. My own personal preference would be to see a bit more of the Yorkshire Dales, which were previously part of the old West Riding, back into West rather than North Yorkshire. But I do not want to start an internecine struggle between Yorkshire folks in this debate.
The fact is that the authority does contain a varied combination of moorland and softer countryside around the conurbation to give it that essential interaction between town and country, and which enables it to provide some continuity with the former county authority and to retain a sense of identity. Whether this same sense of identity is experienced in other metropolitan counties I cannot say, although from observations it would seem clear that many have a strong cultural identity.
My only other significant personal experience is the 13 years when I lived in London, and perhaps because I was not born in either Kensington or Putney, where I lived at different times, I did not feel an identity with either of the boroughs concerned, much though each has to commend it. My real identity was, and is now, with Greater London itself. And it does not need 13 years' residence to establish that identity. People visiting from the provinces or overseas visitors identify with London—not with Lambeth or Fulham or even with the City and Westminster, but with London. I think, of all the metropolitan county areas, London is the one that cannot be envisaged without a corporate being and a corporate voice.
But I must not deflect myself too far from the report, nor intrude too many of my own personal experiences. The report argues that it has been generally accepted in Western Europe and in Canada that the metropolitan system, containing inter-dependent communities with interrelated problems, can be defined geographically, and that each such area needs its own conurbation-wide administration and decision-making process, which cannot satisfactorily be provided by central government. It points out that conurbation-wide metropolitan authorities are required to make strategic decisions for their areas and to control functions which cannot be satisfactorily implemented at a lower level, and it suggests that such authorities, need to have effective implementation powers to ensure that their decisions carry weight.
Reference to the chapters covering individual countries would suggest that the strategic responsibilities for transportation, land-use, environment, waste disposal, recreation and public protection functions are the ones most typically accorded to the conurbation-wide authorities. Again, if I may draw a parallel, this is the basis of West Yorkshire's response to the White Paper Streamlining the Cities. By taking a conurbation-wide perspective of economic and social problems, partly through an economic development programme, the authority has been able to bring some benefits of economy and of improved services to the area. These have included transport,

287
highways, consumer protection, improved leisure services and a developing and important archive service as well as significant contributions to the Arts. To give just one or two examples, the co-ordination of bus and rail passenger transport through the Yorkshire Metro-bus and Metro-rail service with a co-ordinated fares policy is, I think, a unique model. The highways policy includes a scheme to co-ordinate traffic flow as part of a series of specialist services in the conurbation that have provided efficiency and economy in the movement of road traffic and in the highways services generally. Then there is a comprehensive trading standards service that has been introduced cutting out the duplication and variety of enforcement policies which existed in the previous eight separate authorities.
There will be other occasions in the future, no doubt, when these matters can be discussed in more detail. I think the point to emphasise today is that the needs which have led to the establishment of urban county authorities in other countries are the very needs which our present metropolitan counties are providing for. But there are other parallels and indeed principles that can be drawn from this comparative survey that require very careful thought and discussion before we come to the point of defending any one authority or any one structure. I mention four which I think are of paramount importance.
The first is that in all cases in the survey where major conurbations exist there is at least one level of intermediate government—sometimes two—between the local municipal authority and the central state. Unlike the United Kingdom, where, as in so many other ways, our local government structure has just grooved, like Topsy, in some countries abroad local and often provincial and regional democratic rights are entrenched in the constitution. But even where this is not so, it is clear from the report that the structures and functions of each tier of government in the eight countries surveyed are generally the result of prolonged and detailed study, debate and consultation, aimed at ensuring a wide consensus of views, including—and I think this is very important—a multi-authority and a multi-party consensus.
Thirdly, there has been a general move towards decentralisation. The investigation finds that in every country surveyed decentralisation of power has been accepted as a necessary means towards efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of local services. But, again, this approach has been the product of careful examination and review of government structures and functions by independent commissions or parliamentary committees.
Fourthly, the survey finds that the use of joint ad hoc agencies for individual metropolitan functions is not a satisfactory substitute for a democratic multipurpose authority. It lacks responsiveness to local needs and views, and the exercise of self-interest among those involved is paramount. Moreover, the joint ad hoc agencies lack the scale and expertise of the multiservice authorities.
At a time when our own local government structure is being thrown into the melting pot for a second time
288
within two consecutive decades I hope it is helpful for us to look at the experience of others and at the similarity of trends. Of course, this survey is a limited one, but I think it is sufficiently representative for us to take note. Certainly we should take note of the fact that it appears to be us, and not the other eight countries, who are out of step. We should take note of the fact that we cannot afford not to get it right a second time. Surely it would be better to pause and to examine critically and in detail what our needs are, and what functions and areas of government would best serve those needs.
Despite what I have said about West Yorks—and I am sorry that the noble Earl was not here when I mentioned the neighbouring county of North Yorks—there is still doubt as to whether we got it right in 1974, on all sides. Very few, I suspect, would go to the stake to defend the status quo without some amendment. It has been suggested that before embarking on a new reorganisation we should refer the matter to some kind of review body. A Select Committee of the two Houses has been suggested. A Royal Commission has also been suggested. I am making no claims for any specific body. All I am saying is that this survey must surely give us pause. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I rise to speak in this debate, among such a formidable array of local government experts; mainly members of the Labour Party who are committed to the robust defence of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The noble Baroness to whom we are indebted for this debate has taken this survey as a text and prayed it in aid, to some extent, in support of this defence which she has advanced in very moderate terms. She has said nothing intemperate. However, I hope she will forgive me if I do not follow her directly into the intricacies of different layers of local authority.
I start in a personal vein. I have lived, although not for long periods, in France and Italy and for a much longer time in Spain, in which country I am still a ratepayer. It is therefore to the sections of this survey dealing with those countries that I turned with most interest. I was particularly struck by the passage on page 43, in the Italian section, where we are told that both the Spanish and Italian systems emerged in the aftermath of fascist dictatorships when,
"local autonomy was seen as the key to democratisation and a barrier against future national authoritarianism".
I draw attention to those words because I think they are not totally irrelevant in the light of certain tendencies in this country today. Those countries—France, Italy and Spain—had, and to some extent still have, a layer of provinces (50 in the case of Spain) sandwiched between regional government, where it exists, and the municipalities. This is a legacy of the Napoleonic system of centralisation and it served, in Franco's Spain, as a vital network through which central government delegates from all the main ministries controlled provincial finance and acted as the essential patrons of any provincial activity. They were buttressed by a civil governor and a military governor in each province.

289
Spain is the most recent recruit to the ranks of the Western democracies. What steps has Spain taken in the field of local government? Spain has demoted the provinces and very much raised the profile of the autonomous or semi-autonomous regions-17 in all, I think—and the municipalities. Both types of authority are being run by elected bodies through a system of proportional representation which is also used for national elections. This has been done at the expense of the old centralist provinces with their all-powerful central government delegates.
Noble Lords may ask: "What has all this to do with us?" That is precisely the virtue of the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, which strives to set our metropolitan and other local government traumas in a wider context. For that we owe her a debt of gratitude. It is true, of course, that our system has developed rather differently. It is true that local authorities were created by Parliament and in most cases cannot claim more than a century of seniority as against some much older autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies in other countries. It is true that Britain is a unitary state, as Mr. Patrick Jenkin is so fond of reminding us. But so is Spain. Spain is a unitary state and the second article of her 1978 constitution promulgated the indissoluble unity of the nation, of which the King is guarantor. At the same time, their autonomous nations and regions are very much further developed than our own. Despite its diversity Spain is not federal, it is unitary. Therefore, to invoke the unitary state as a slogan for bashing local democracy is not good enough. It may be said that what Parliament gave away it can take back. But what did Parliament give away? In the first place it gave away responsibility for the Poor Law, policing, roads, water, sewerage and so on. Since then it has devolved education, social services, housing, homelessness and care in the community—you name it, the local authorities have it.
The growing complexity of life made this inevitable and local government must therefore have adequate tools and be of adequate strategic size to fulfil those obligations. The alternative is a central government delegate from each ministry, which typified the Napoleonic system. Is that what the Government want?
Some local councils no doubt grew over-mighty and were monopolised by a single party. Some have done things that I deeply disapprove of. But that does not invalidate the principle of local democracy or warrant the civil war that the Government have unleashed on the local authorities and the metropolitan areas in particular. That is not good for collaboration and joint effort, and it is not good for a unitary Britain.
I turn briefly to three areas of particular concern. First, there is a passage in the report, on page 53, which casts very serious doubts on the effectiveness of,
"ad hoc solutions for particular functions, by means of joint boards, inter-municipal agreements, inter-authority contracting for services etc."
The whole of this passage repays reading, but I shall read only two more short quotations:
"The evidence is that this functional fragmentation, added to geographic fragmentation, was believed to preclude an integrated approach to the provision of services for purposes that are interdependent".
290
The next quote reads:
"In fact the extent to which municipalities will agree to support joint ad hoc agencies appears to be sometimes at least very limited, partly because of a dislike of losing accountability and partly because of a fear of inequities in their resource demands and in their provision of services. They fail not only to take into account interrelationships and to co-operate to formulate, much less implement, strategies, but also to provide a voice in the nation for representation for the metropolitan areas as a whole".
The passages I have read seem to me to be very relevant to the situation that is likely to arise after the Government have abolished the GLC and the metropolitan counties. We are not enamoured of these bodies; we do not believe them to be faultless. But we think the Government's proposals lack credibility and are animated by political opportunism rather than by any serious approach to a complex problem.
My second point concerns local authority finance. There seems little doubt that if this is not reformed in a more positive way than by the clumsy device of rate-capping some important authorities will go bankrupt and the Government will have to put in commissioners. This could lead speedily to a pattern of central government delegates in charge of local affairs which General Franco would have envied. This is precisely the pattern from which newly-democratic Spain has striven to escape, with all the toadying and the patronage that it involves.
If the war the Government are pursuing against local authorities is based on the dislike of political extremism there is a very simple solution which was proposed recently by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich and only narrowly defeated in your Lordships' House. It is to allow proportional representation in local government elections, as is the practice in most parts of the civilised world. I will not go into that any further this evening but it is something to which we shall certainly come back. I was also interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, refer to multi-party consensus.
We can understand the present Government's drive for efficiency and to cut unnecessary costs. I do not think any sensible person would contest that there are many demands—and they are increasing daily—on the resources of society due to demographic and other trends, but we wonder whether efficiency is best achieved through centralisation. Also, we watch with some amazement as a Government committed to rolling back the frontiers of the state are rolling them forward, in some respects at least. They may have trimmed back the central Civil Service and enforced cuts in local authority manpower, but this is all very small beer compared with the steadily growing powers of the Secretaries of State. It seems to me to be incontestable that the powers of the Secretaries of State have increased and are increasing, but they ought to be decreased. This is true in health, education, local government finance and other fields.
I do not say that no national priorities should be set. For example, there is a strong case for some sort of central direction of training. But the question is how these priorities are carried out. No doubt the Government believe that what they are doing or attempting to do to local government in general and metropolitan government in particular is in the interests of the nation. But at the same time they should pause to reflect that they are overriding some of

291
the rather delicate and, I would say, essential checks and balances in our unwritten constitution. These stem in a sensible and sensitive way from the accumulated experience of our history and culture, and in repudiating them the Government are creating a centralised instrument of power which in other hands could be manipulated, with very grave consequences for our individual freedoms and cherished liberties.
Before the Government go any further in this direction they should have a look at this report. I draw their attention in particular to a passage at the top of page 52 where it is suggested that comparisons can stimulate self-evaluation and review. The report goes on:
"Where we appear to he moving in a contrary direction"—
this is a point that was made by the noble Baroness. Lady Lockwood—
"from countries abroad, we may well consider why this is so and whether we have overlooked factors to which they have given weight".
We have had good cause to be proud of our system of Government and our institutions in the past, but we should not be too proud to learn from other countries' solutions to the problems of administering large conurbations. It is my fear that just as our economic pre-eminence has declined, so we may slip further down in the league table of political maturity.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lady Lockwood for initiating this debate. The report before us today widens from a political football to an academic study the terms of reference of the current debate on the Government's decision to abolish metropolitan authorities. As my noble friend explained, it compares the British system of local government with the systems in 14 other western democracies. One must begin where the author begins and acknowledge that he has indeed provided only a starting point for a vast and complex subject. But I believe it is a starting point distinguished by its objectivity, its care and professionalism.
The importance of having this debate before the Government finally launch themselves into the legislation that unfortunately has been threatened is that it gives us a chance to have another look at the whole subject, not on party political lines but as something that is important to the constitution of the country, to local government and to central government. The author warns us that it would be rash to attempt any direct comparisons or to draw hasty conclusions from the analyses he sets out. Obviously functions, funding and democratic control can all vary between countries. Nevertheless, if one studies the systems of government operating in the 14 city areas one finds there is one thread that links them all. It is acknowledged by the national governments concerned that metropolitan regions are best administered by local authorities of a size and range to answer the needs of the cities.
One may ask why this should be so. I believe a major reason is that in a way quite foreign to our own political climate there is in all the countries studied a
292
consensus and understanding of local and regional structures. It is an understanding that spans political differences and adds significantly to the stability and good management of urban areas. Most important, I believe, is the common recognition that the successful management of large cities must involve a real and identifiable decentralisation of power. One recognises the different philosophy underlying the proposals of our own Government. To quote the report:
"The tendency, on the contrary, appears to be strongly in the direction of a reduction of local government power, concentration of power in Whitehall and Westminster of a kind unparalleled in comparable countries elsewhere".
It is true, although the noble Baroness was extremely modest about her knowledge of local government, which is far greater than that to which she admitted, that in this House and in another place over the last few years when we have been discussing different Bills and pieces of legislation, all the time the tendency has been towards an increase of centralisation and the taking back to the Secretary of State of decision making. This has been remarked on not just from these Benches but from all over the House. The accountability is gradually being removed from the local authorities to central government.
In this week's Sunday Times, Hugo Young, the political editor, referred in his column to the Government as having succumbed,
"to the enticements of the centraliser. In so doing, it not only reverses its intentions, but exposes itself to a series of risks. What it is losing is control. This may seem ironic, since by seizing power, you might think it could only increase its control. But it is losing political control: not over parliament but over events".
He then goes on—I will not trouble noble Lords with the quotation—to give examples of this, including the areas of rates and local government.
In pushing this trend towards increased centralisation what are the Government achieving? It is impossible to discuss the subject without discussing one of the great problems facing us today. Certainly it is not saving. Civil servants are now warning the Department of the Environment that the vague election statements set the cost of abolition far too low. It was given as between £20 million and £70 million. The financial burden will certainly be far harsher than envisaged—and this is a point which has become generally accepted—partly because of the loss of an all-encompassing authority capable of exploiting "economies of scale" and gaining from the
"equalising mechanism of the metropolitan rate precept".
The Government are always very keen to point out that in other areas, in business, having large enterprises means that economies of this kind can be made.
The loss of the essential redistributive financial role of the metropolitan authorities will mean that social justice will be greatly eroded, while increased fragmentation will permit the return of greater inequalities between rich and poor, because it will not then be possible to even things out through having a large local authority.
My noble friend referred in particular to West Yorkshire, and I am sure that other noble Lords will refer to other metropolitan counties of which they have special knowledge. At this stage I must say in parenthesis that I thought that the response from West Yorkshire to the Government White Paper was

293
excellent, as indeed have been the responses of not only all the metropolitan counties, but so many other bodies which will be touched by what is being proposed and which cover an enormous expanse of our national life. All have expressed grave doubts and very great worries about what the Government are proposing to do.
At this point I should like to refer in particular to London, where I have always lived. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred I think to a robust defence of the GLC from the Labour Benches. The defence of the GLC—which is no more perfect than a great many other organisations—does not come solely from the Labour Benches. It comes from all over. It comes from other political parties. It comes from the Conservative group on the GLC. It comes from Londoners themselves. In a poll in December 1983 59 per cent. of them indicated that they did not want to see the abolition of the GLC. A tremendous range of other groups, including various voluntary and social organisations, and the Commission for Racial Equality—bodies concerned with every aspect of our lives which would be touched by the abolition of the metropolitan authorities—are concerned about the proposals.
It is important to recognise that we are talking not only about structures. We are talking also about how changes in structures affect, and will affect, the lives of everyone and will be to the detriment of the way they will live in the future—
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will give way for a second. I do not doubt that there are other people apart from the Labour Party who are defending the GLC. I was simply referring to people who are in this Chamber this evening, and I think that the noble Baroness will confirm that most of the participants in this debate are from the Labour Benches.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think that we have a minimum number this evening, and so I do not think that one can read too much into that, but I take the noble Lord's point. I was not sure whether he was looking at the matter on a larger scale.
When we compare London with other capital cities given as examples and examined in considerable depth in the report, we see that we would be the only country in Western Europe without a capital city. This point is of tremendous importance not only to those of us in London itself, and in this country, but also in the context of the EEC. Certainly other countries feel that they must have a capital city that takes an overall view—that is to say, a strategic view—of things and an authority which is directly elected, which is extremely important when we are talking, as we are, of democracy. Unless we follow that view we shall be out of line with other countries in Western Europe, and we shall find that we are out on a limb. I consider that that point has some considerable importance.
The trouble with the Government's plans—as has been pointed out by my noble friend and I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—is that nothing was properly assessed. The proposal was rushed into a manifesto, and all our past experience shows that
294
reorganisations of this kind have always cost much more than the set-ups they replaced.
The argument which is always being put to us in favour of doing away with the metropolitan counties is that everything can go down to the districts and be dealt with in that way. That is just not true; it is not possible. Today local authorities at district level and at county shire level are in a position where their expenditure is being severely cut, and the cuts will bite harder and harder. The amounts that they can now give towards such essential activities as the arts, as well as to all kinds of other causes which at the moment are being financed by the metropolitan counties—and here London is very much in need—will not be possible. There will just not be the money. In that case what will happen? We shall have the joint boards—the quangos—which are removed from the democratic process. There will be a lack of financial support from the districts because they will simply not be able to cope, and indeed they are themselves having to cut down on essential services. If the boards are set up, there will be greater bureaucracy, less efficiency, and no real accountability. Whatever our political views, this is a matter that we must take very seriously and consider what will be the effect of the proposals on the country.
Let us consider, for example, the voluntary services. The National Council of Voluntary Organisations is worried stiff about what is being proposed, and so is the Commission for Racial Equality. In his conclusions the author of the report points out that,
"Purely voluntary associations are not known to have a satisfactory record of success. A special legal framework and definition of powers and mandatory responsibilities have clearly been necessary in all the cases considered".
This is of great importance to noble Lords, and in this House I think the majority have very strong connections with voluntary organisations of all kinds all over the country.
The document is critical of the way in which we in the United Kingdom have made radical changes in our local government structure with nothing like the same degree of examination, consideration and consultation employed in other countries. That is quite apart from the high cost that is always involved in structural change. Recently there have been many calls, notably from one of the organisations most concerned with the Government proposals to reorganise metropolitan local government—that is, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—for a thorough review to he undertaken into all the schemes for our cities before they go ahead. After all, before the LCC became the GLC the Herbert Commission sat, between 1957 and 1960. Before the setting up of the metropolitan counties the Redcliffe-Maud Commission sat in the 'sixties, and for Scotland the Wheatley Commission sat. Those reorganisations were not undertaken just on the basis of a line in the manifesto of any of the political parties.
To be quite blunt, it is hard to imagine any worse arrangements than the Government's present proposals. It is little wonder that many local authorities in this country have for some time now been pressing steadily that the draft European Charter of Local Self-Government should have a fair wind through the bureaucracies of Europe and an

295
understanding reception from the United Kingdom Government.
In 1977 when there was a Tory council in the GLC but a Labour Government at Westminster, the same Mr. Jenkin, who is now in charge of the DoE, said:
"I believe that we have got to return to the concept that the GLC is a strategic authority. The GLCs planning powers should be essentially strategic, and provide a framework within which the boroughs should operate the day to day planning controls".
Yet the same Patrick Jenkin, quoted in the Financial Times on 28th October last year, said that an inquiry would mean putting off the necessary decisions and action.
How shall we arrive at the best decisions without a proper inquiry along the lines already suggested in one form or another? It is not my purpose today to mount a plea for the retention of our present local government arrangements as they stand. However, it would be foolish to pretend that we have the right answers. What we must do is ask the Government to set things in motion so that we do get the right answers before any action is taken.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for instituting the debate and for making it one about local government in general and not particularly about the party political issues which are so difficult to separate. I wish to make only one point. It is a point that I do not think is made in Alan Norton's survey. It has certainly not been made by the three noble Lords who have so far spoken. Yet it is absolutely basic to the success of local government in Britain. I know this from my experience in Scotland where metropolitan areas are differently treated and where the point does not arise in quite the same way. But no modern local government system, however well thought out, however well researched and however well defined by statute, can possibly work in this country unless the elected councillors accept that they have to operate within the overall economic strategy of the government of the day whether or not, at any given moment, those councillors—whatever their political persuasion may be—agree personally with the strategy.
If local government councillors refuse continually to do this and use local government powers to try to frustrate central government's overall strategy, then we, as a country, and local government itself, will not succeed in responding rapidly to the changing world scene. We cannot continually be riding a horse that is trying to go in two directions at once. To most people, this appears obvious. As a country, we elect a national government to run the country as a whole. It has a certain political approach and a certain economic strategy at a given time. Locally, we elect local councils. We elect them in several tiers. They have limited local functions. They have their own political approach. The local councils and the national government must work together.
Until recently, councillors have found no major problem in this. Councillors of all political persuasions have seen it as their responsibility to accept the functions defined by statute, to perform those
296
functions in the most efficient, sensitive and cost-effective way they can, in the interests of their ratepayers and in the context of government as a whole. In this, until recently, they found plenty of scope within their comparatively limited role—including political scope. Those who wanted to move on to a wider stage have progressed into national politics and many are in your Lordships' House.
Since the early 1970s, as we know, much has happened in the world of local government. In the course of it, some local authorities have forgotten this basic essential. Indeed, many national politicians have encouraged them to forget just that. There are, I suppose, several reasons why this has happened. As a result of reorganisation, when, for good reasons, a number of very large authorities were formed, they had a large rate base: they had wide functions—in the case of metropolitan councils, not many functions, but wide functions. The councillors had an extremely responsible role, with tax raising and spending powers which, even if kept in tight control, were of a dimension that, by any definition, formed a major part of national public spending and economic strategy.
It was assumed, when the changes were made, that councillors would continue to see local democracy as involving acceptance of the economic framework set by the government of the day, that they would continue to work within that overall strategy and that national politicians would encourage them to do so. It was assumed that even higher calibre councillors would he attracted into local government, and that because of their wider, more responsible role, they would be even more statesmanlike in their approach than before.
Simultaneously with all this reorganisation inflation came, and then recession. There was a need for successive governments, first Labour, and then Conservative, to control public spending. Because large authorities are responsible for such a large part of public spending, cash limits had to be applied, and this was done in different ways. Members of large authorities had considerable pressures upon them. It was a considerable test in balancing their duty to their own electorate with their duty to the country as a whole.
Simultaneously—and I believe this to be very important—there was a rapid expansion of local television and local radio. There was more air time to be occupied and broadcasters were keen to put local government people on the air. Many councillors quickly spotted the potential of this, learnt to use it well and became as well known locally as some members of the Cabinet nationally. I, for one, have been constantly amazed, following three minutes on television news on some local issue, to find at a meeting or a whist drive that half the people there had seen me and were discussing what I had been on about.
All of us know what has happened as a result of wider powers, bigger spending potentiality and bigger potential to frustrate national economic strategy. The debate about the effect on rates, on business and on the economy in general is in train in another place. It is within the metropolitan authorities especially that ambitious, able, political people have been somehow coming to use their role to spend high when they were being asked not to spend high, and to extend activity

297
within the law but somehow stretching it to its limits. Far from accepting the framework set by central government, they have been deliberately trying to frustrate it. Your Lordships may think otherwise, but I believe that this is not democracy. It is an abuse of the system of democracy that we are trying to operate in this country.
My own view is that the metropolitan authorities, as they now are, could have been made to work without damaging local business, without creating massive political campaigns designed to frustrate the central government, without squabbling with the lower tier of local government. In general, Strathclyde region in Scotland—which is the biggest local authority in the country—has accepted the national framework. I do not agree with all their ideas, but on the whole they have worked within the guidelines that they were given. On the other hand, Lothian region in Scotland for a time did not do so. It did not work. It has now changed and it is working much better.
Metropolitan areas seem to show little indication of wanting to change. We hear that the GLC is now, at the eleventh hour, going to reduce the rates and at the same time massively improve the services. I can only ask as regards that: if that is true, why not last year? No, my Lords, despite the extremely well-argued survey, despite the evidence which is there—and it is very interesting—despite the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the record is such, and the structure is such, that we must make a change and we can make a change without an enormously expensive upheaval.
I agree that we have to get it right. I hope that we shall not concentrate so much on what we do in the GLC area that we do not get right what happens in the metropolitan counties. It has to he got right; it has to be decided before very long. But, whatever we do, let us make a structure in which local councillors see clearly that they are working within the context, and with the grain, of national strategy, whatever the political colour of the national government may be at the time, and whatever the political colour of the local council may be at the time.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has put forward what is a comparatively recent doctrine in local government. We have all understood for a long time that a local authority must obey the law; that the law lays down certain rules as to what it may or may not do, and that it neither can disobey them nore ought to attempt to do so. Now we are putting forward the doctrine that, in addition to that, they must not only respect the law but they must respect the general political outlook of the central Government.
The extraordinary feature of that doctrine is that it has never been put forward before. Your Lordships will not find it in any of the learned manuals on the working of our constitution. It is put forward now because a Conservative Government are finding it a little difficult to get all their own way in face of the political complexion of certain large local authorities. In view of that, they propose to abolish or to alter the powers of those local authorities. That is what it is all about.
298
The doctrine that it has always been the duty of local authorities to fall in with the general political philosophy of central Government has no basis in our history, and nor does it make sense. It is often quite a good thing for central Governments to have their authority and their policies challenged within the limits of the law, by powerful local authorities. It is one of the things that makes us a democracy.
We are all greatly indebted to my noble friend Lady Lockwood for having initiated this debate. It draws our attention to the fact that one cannot argue too easily from one country to another; each country breeds its own form and pattern of local government. For example, in the Netherlands they regard it as quite natural that an appointee of the central Government should take the chair as regards, certain meetings of provincial and local authorities. We should regard that as a very odd arrangement in this country. So we must not attempt any kind of close following of what happens in other countries.
We must also remember that it is almost impossible to get the right answer to any question in local government. If one asks: "What is the right size of a local authority in this region of the country?", one is up against the fact that what is the best size for some functions is not the best size for others. Whatever size one picks on, it will be open to criticism on the ground that it is not good for some of the functions that the local authority has to perform. We must accept the fact that it is inevitable that we will never get it quite right.
Similarly, if one is trying to decide what should be the functions of a particular local authority, one may run into the error of loading it with so many functions that it will be a laborious, clumsy body taking a long time to do everything. Alternatively, one may give it so few functions that it becomes an almost one-purpose authority, having to carry on its work which is affected by the work of other fields of local government over which it now has powers. So there again we will never get our answers quite right.
Nonetheless—and this is the value of this international study—there are certain broad general conclusions (some of them more negative and warning than positive) that emerge. One thing is quite clear: the great conurbation is here to stay. We now have great cities—great not only in comparison with the 18th century, but great in comparison with the beginning of this century. If one compares London now with London in 1900, one finds that it is a much greater urban area. The great conurbation is obviously here to stay. We have to decide what its form of government shall be. The answer from this survey and from our own experience seems to be that for a great conurbation we need two kinds of authority—a larger one, probably coterminous with the conurbation, and smaller ones inside it. We need that because there are certain functions that cannot be efficiently carried out except on a conurbation basis; for example, the fire brigade, the police, land use, transport, planning and economic development.
But if we create a large authority to perform those functions (because smaller ones cannot do it) and we then load on to that large authority everything else, it will become intolerably weighed down with business.

299
Let me give a simple example. I do not think that it would be a good thing for the Fulham libraries to be run from County Hall; nor do I think it would be a good thing to cut up the London Fire Brigade and have it run on the basis of the London boroughs. We can multiply those examples and see that there is a need for the larger and the smaller authorities in the great conurbation.
However, the Government are proposing to get rid of the larger authority and to leave us simply with the smaller ones—in London, to leave the London boroughs but to destroy the GLC; and to make comparable changes in the metropolitan counties. That is one point at which the Government's policy departs from what seems to be the general experience of Western Europe. But when we do that, when we abolish the larger conurbation-wide authority, we are still up against the fact that it performed certain functions which we cannot hand over to the smaller authorities. Therefore, we will find ourselves being obliged to create certain joint boards or certain bodies which owe their existence to the Government, and some of them will be so limited in their function as to be simply ad hoc bodies.
If we want to form an opinion about ad hoc bodies or bodies with a very narrow range of functions, we hardly need to make a foreign study. We have only to look at our own history in the last century. As the growth of urban life created one need after another, so one authority after another was created to deal with those needs, and the puzzled citizen became surrounded with burial hoards, school boards, boards of guardians and vestries, to say nothing of the Metropolitan Board of Works, a government creation overseeing it all in the capital. After a time, of course, we realised that that did not work, and one reason why it did not work was that it quite naturally bewildered the citizen. He was always being asked to elect some body with a very narrow range of functions. If one wants to get the citizen out and interested, one should ask him to vote for a body with a fairly wide range of functions. Under what is now being proposed, it looks as though he will not vote for ad hoc authorities but that such bodies will be appointed by the Government, or else they will be the result of joint boards.
Of all forms of local government work, one of the most dreary is correspondence between different local authorities about a joint job that has to be done, and nobody is quite sure who will be blamed for it if it goes wrong. Wherever you can, avoid that. That is the whole lesson of our history and, apparently, of these continental examples. But apparently we shall have more of these. I believe that we want a simple system of government. I am suggesting that in the great conurbations we want a large authority and smaller authorities within it, but between them, if it is humanly possible, they ought to do all the work. They should be elected bodies, so that when a citizen votes he knows the responsibilities of that person for whom he is voting and who is to blame if this, that or the other thing goes wrong.
Local government is of great value in giving life to democracy. I think it was Lenin who sneered at our democracy on the ground that once in every five years we went and exercised it. There are a great many
300
reasons why that was not true, but one reason was the continuing interest in democracy that the citizen can show if he votes for local authorities which are real local authorities with defined powers, and when he knows when he votes what his representative will be expected to do. We shall have less and less of this in the arrangements that are now before us.
One other lesson that appears to emerge from the continental study is that if local urban authorities are to do the job well they must have a certain amount of financial stability. They must be assured either of grants of a certain amount from central Government or they must be given the necessary power to raise local taxes or rates; but if they are constantly to be tripped up through lack of funds, no-one will have confidence in them and the machinery will not work. We are now being asked to consider a system of Government in which financial stability of that kind is the one thing that local authorities will not be able to expect because there will always be central Government breathing down their neck and threatening to take away their revenues.
Finally, there is one lesson to be learned from this foreign study, and it is simply expressed: look before you leap; do not start making great changes in local government until you have thought about it a good deal. I very much doubt whether it could be established that the changes made in local government early in the 1970s have been of any real benefit to anyone, particularly when you set against them the inevitable cost of carrying out changes of that kind. There is not only the confusion while the services are being shunted from one authority to another; there is the awful confusion in the personal lives of local government servants, and the immense number of problems over redundancy which have to be considered. We do not want to rush into that kind of thing without being reasonably certain that it is worth it. I do not believe that the last changes in local government were worth it in that sense; and I very much doubt whether the London Government Act 1963 was worth it.
The other night a pamphlet about the GLC was pushed through my letter-box. It said that the GLC had not fulfilled the high hopes of those who created it. The odd thing was that the pamphlet came from the local Conservative Party, who were, of course, the people who, with their colleagues, helped to create this body. With those examples before them, one would have thought that they would not rush quite so quickly into very large changes of local government, none of which, to judge either from our own history or from foreign example, offers us any real promise of better government.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, first, I should like to join previous speakers in congratulating my noble friend Lady Lockwood on introducing this report for debate and for the manner in which she did so. However, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I direct my contribution, such as it is, more along the lines that have just been enunciated by my noble friend Lord Stewart.
I do not think that we need to look at this report at all to see why we should not initiate this change at this

301
point in time. I believe that the overwhelming evidence is in this country and is of recent origin. One only has to look back 10 or 11 years to see the fundamental mistakes that were made, but that does not give an excuse for returning to that situation.
What produced the present situation? It was the fact that huge metropolitan areas of the country contained very large authorities based on the old major cities. They were surrounded by a series of smaller county boroughs or urban areas which, through history, refused to amalgamate and make more economic unitary authorities. So in the 1950s the Government of the day set up a committee or commission under the chairmanship of a very distinguished person, Sir John Redcliffe-Maud, to look into the situation. Along with quite a number of other people who have since been ennobled in this House, I was involved in those particular discussions. Most of the big cities wanted to be left alone to retain their unitary authority status. The Government of the day—which by then was a Conservative Government—decided that that was not the way to go. We are now talking about people losing a vote. When I lived in Manchester I never knew what it was to have a county council vote—and nor did the people of Leeds or Birmingham—until the last local government reorganisation, because there were no county councils in those areas. The county councils surrounded them; there was a Lancashire County Council and the old West Riding County Council, but there was no regard whatever in the major conurbations and the cities as to what went on outside in the county councils that bordered them.
Because of that, when that particular exercise took place, there was a tremendous amount of jealousy between the new metropolitan districts and the new large metropolitan counties. For a while there was almost open warfare between them because the big cities did not want to lose some of the services that were being given to the counties. But over a period of years that friction and antagonism has diminished—and diminished quite considerably—and they are working together.
It would be disastrous for the sake of a political argument—and I believe that that is what we are talking about; there is no common sense in what is being proposed—once again to try to alter the situation. There are prominent members of the other side, who have since been ennobled, who were in local government at the time and who, if they spoke from the heart, would say what I am saying. It is significant that out of all noble Lords on the other side who have practical experience in local government, only one noble Baroness has put her name down today to speak in support of what the Government are about to do.
There is no substitute at all for people being given the right to vote and to elect into office the people they want or to elect out of office those they do not want. Let us get away from the idea that we can have joint boards, whoever mans them, and from wherever those people are appointed. I have never known a Government of any colour which, when making appointments, did not look through rose-coloured spectacles at its own nominees or delegates.
I sat with some disdain the other day listening to a debate in this Chamber on the Telecommunications Bill. Noble Lords on the other side were indulging in a
302
self-imposed naiveté beyond belief. They were saying that the best man for a particular job would get the job irrespective of his political persuasion or philosophy. I have to remind noble Lords that only recently there was a long-running battle in another Chamber when certain Secretaries of States, on receiving office, started at once to remove able, long-standing, and trustworthy people from appointed offices because their political views did not coincide with those of the Government.
I challenged the Secretary of State for the DHSS when he decided overnight to dispense with five of the best, most tried and experienced chairmen of regional authorities in the country. The same happened with the water authorities, and even at higher level in some of the financial institutions where the Government are responsible for giving out these jobs. Do not let us lull ourselves into the idea that, if there is an appointed hoard, the local authorities in the area can have 30 per cent., and the other 70 per cent. the Minister will appoint. If he is a Conservative Minister he is not doing his job if he does not, by his appointments, make sure that at least 51 per cent. are Conservative members, or people with that philosophy, and a succeeding Labour Minster would not be doing his job if he did not take such action. To think that it would be any different is complete naiveté.
I see something a little more dangerous in this. The AMA were formed as a successor to the AMC, and the AMA were formed because of the local government pattern. Within London and the metropolitan countries there are 24 million residents in this country. As I said, historically a lot of them had a county council vote before. For some of them it was new. They have had the vote for only the last decade, and perhaps have voted three times because they do so every four years. What are the Government saying now? That the right to that vote will be taken away. If you have a population of 24 million it follows, on the usual rule of thumb, that 50 per cent. of the population in an area are on the electoral roll, which means that the present Government are indulging in an exercise of taking the vote away from 12 million people every four years.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is not what the noble Lord has been saying an absolute confirmation of what I have always felt, that the only solution is to get rid of party politics in local government for good and all?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if we lived in a perfect world that would probably he the best solution, but people and societies are not like that. Certainly experience in this country has shown that the only time a national government in the real sense works is in a time of strict adversity. When people are entitled in a democracy to opt for the type of society they want, it would he dangerous to try to interfere with that. The point I make and repeat—and I do not know whether it has been taken on board by some noble Lords opposite—is that to start turning the clock back and to deny 12 million people a vote (which some have had for only the past decade) to elect a tier of authority between them and the Government, is a dangerous philosophy.
I am not talking about London because I do not have a wide knowledge of the GLC, so there is no point

303
in my talking about that, but the six large metropolitan counties almost totally focus on the largest unit in the centre. For instance, in the country of West Yorkshire, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred, I think that 50 per cent. of the total population live in the metropolitan city of Leeds. It might be a hit upwards of that, but it is roughly that figure. Manchester is a completely botched up job, because even the last local government reorganisation was not put through as was recommended because of local political pressures. You have the situation with Manchester in the centre with almost half a million people, and just on the northern and eastern side of it are two authorities which were allowed to come into being with just over 200,000 population. The whole thing in that sense is an abortion. Nevertheless, they have learned to operate under a county council which has responsibility for certain functions.
I know that the Government Chief Whip appealed to noble Lords not to speak for too long. However, I commenced by saying that some of the severe friction that started with the last local government reorganisation has disappeared, but I am saying that this is a recipe which will resurrect it overnight. Any particular county area, whether you do away with the council or not, will adopt a regional entity which no Government Bill can destroy. There will then be competition within that area for Government resources on various matters, and there will be nobody between the Government and the district authority to adjudicate.
Being from local government myself, I know what will happen. The biggest authority in the area will become the over-dominant one, and sometimes at the expense of the others. It will inevitably happen, and this is why I appeal to the Government to think again. These cities before were powerful units, and they still are. The county structure was imposed on them, but it has now started to work. When I first joined another place I submitted proposals to the then Labour Government on behalf of the AMA—and its leader then was Sir Robert Thomas—which showed how the county councils could be given a role, and that they could be given some of the work done by these appointed boards, which would have ameliorated the situation between them and the counties. There is no reason why they could not have been involved in water services instead of the water boards. There is no reason why they could not have taken over regional planning and things like that, but they were denied that role.
It would be better if the Government thought again for quite a while and did what the last Government did in 1960, and appointed a commission perhaps under a distinguished legal colleague in this Chamber, or somebody of that ilk, to look at the situation in a dispassionate manner. If the Government go through with their proposals as they intend, it will lead to nothing but an unmitigated disaster.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, one has to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the clear way in which she put forward the proposals in the report. I found the report hard going. What the
304
noble Baroness pointed out clearly was that all the major conurbations, not only in Europe but in other parts, need unified planning of services in some fields. Therefore, one must ask the Government: do they think that our urban problems are different in some way from those in other parts of the world? If they are different, then we need to be told.
As my noble friend Lord Stewart pointed out, it was a Tory Government which set up the metropolitan counties in 1974 because they recognised, with all the reports that came forward from the Royal Commission, that strategic public authorities were essential. Now that a political conflict has arisen between the Government and the metropolitan counties, the Government's idea about the structure of local government has undergone a complete right about turn.
In its election manifesto of 1970, the Conservative Party said that it would bring about a sensible measure of local government reform which would involve a genuine devolution of power from central government and would provide a two-tier structure. My noble friend Lady Birk spelt out quite clearly that, while that might have been in the Conservative Party election manifesto of 1970, it is not the policy of this Conservative Government, who seem to feel that Whitehall knows best about everything: whether it is how to manure one's back garden or how to build the finest aircraft possible. That is an impossible task for any government department to undertake.
It is recognised in the White Paper that the need to abolish the metropolitan authorities is because they have been shown to be wasteful and an unnecessary tier of local government. But there has been no cost-effective analysis by the Government to prove that theory. It is just what they think happens. We know, when they undertook to reorganise the National Health Service, which took place in the same period as the reorganisation of local government, what a wholesale flop that was.
What concerns me more than anything is whether it can be proved by the Government that further reorganisation will be a means of saving resources by providing a more efficient system of government for the planning and delivery of existing services, or is it a means of reducing the already high level of provision of these services? If it is to be a means of reducing the real level of provision of public services, that is what will concern noble Members on these Benches. Our concern is because the changes affect, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick said, approximately 25 per cent. of the population of the country, all in very close, confined areas. They are the country's major urban areas, where housing, unemployment and social care are the most serious problems.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter is not in the Chamber, because he always contests any figures that I use and that I obtain them from some secret source, which is not Cheltenham. But the figures I shall quote are from Government sources, from the Central Statistical Office and the Department of the Environment. These figures are for the characteristics of metropolitan counties compared with the rest of England and the shires. I wish to give three. The average gross weekly earnings for men

305
working full time in April 1981 for the whole of England were £141 per week. Not one metropolitan authority reached that figure. The figures are as low as £131·8 a week. The West Midlands, to which I am proud to belong, was one of the most thriving parts of Great Britain, but it now has a wage rate of £133·8 compared with the national £141.
If we look again at professionals, employers and managers expressed as a percentage of economically active persons in the areas, we find that in the whole of England the figure is 15·5 per cent., but nowhere in any of the metropolitan authorities do we find such a level of that classification of person; those in the higher levels are down to 10 per cent. The highest is 13 per cent. and again in the West Midlands there is a low figure of 11·7 per cent.
For unemployment we see that the latest figures that are available for England show an average of 11·2 per cent. For the metropolitan districts we find 15·7 per cent., 17·9 per cent., and 13·7per cent. The West Midlands again, which was a very prosperous area, is down to a level of 15·2 per cent. against the national average of 11·2 per cent. unemployed. That is why the metropolitan districts should be considered quite differently from any other part of the country.
The Royal Commission reported in 1964 and it is spelt out in its report that there is a need to consider the metropolitan counties as a special local government problem which requires distinct solutions. That was said in 1964 in the days when "we never had it so good". I do not know what would be said now in 1984, when unemployment has increased in those areas, where major manufacturing areas have been completely destroyed—something which has nothing to do with wage rates. Here I address the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. In the West Midlands there are whole areas of dereliction where steelworks have closed down. That has nothing to do with wage rates. It has to do with the lack of need for steel and it is unfortunate for those areas that they have to suffer that dereliction. If we have learned anything from the report of the Royal Commission in 1964, it is that the situation is a lot worse.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the noble Baroness does not mind my interrupting for one moment, would she say that the dereliction in those areas was totally unrelated to the rate levels that have been created by the councils?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should remind the noble Baroness that in belonging to the EEC we have to conform as regards the amount of steel that we manufacture. Because our statistics show that we do not have to produce so much, the West Midlands is one of those areas which have had to get rid of steelworks. It has nothing to do with anything else, with the incompetence of workers in the area or with high wage rates. It is the fact that we have to cut down on the amount of steel produced.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is sitting on the Front Bench while we are talking about joint hoards. He also sat on the Front Bench when we were discussing the Water Bill. He remembers quite distinctly the fight that we had on the Water Bill to try to get the Minister to put into the statute that members
306
of local authorities should be on the water boards. The Government resisted and resisted. We understand now that it is in some rules and regulations, but it is not in the statute that local authorities should be able to have representatives sitting on the boards of water authorities.
As my noble friend Lord Dean spelt out, when the water boards were first set up they mainly comprised local authority members. There is no right now for a local authority member to be on a water authority. As the noble Lord remembers, it was his noble friend who said that what we want are very small committees of businessmen to run the water authorities. That is what worries us—that if these boards are set up they will be run on exactly the same lines and there will be no local authority representatives.
When we are talking about police boards and fire service boards, we have to remember that this might easily be the first steps towards a national service losing all sense of local identity.
The noble Lord might challenge—I should not object if he did—my own position for having said that I felt the West Midlands metropolitan county might be one authority that was not necessary. That opinion was formed as a result of the experience that I had had as a member of the Birmingham local authority.
It might be, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has said, that that was the feeling of all large local authorities. I think that was because we felt very selfish that we were successful authorities and we did not want anybody else to poach anything from us. But now I think (as Lord Dean expressed very clearly) that all these areas are in areas of the country where they are fighting for all their worth to try to become economically viable communities once again, and to get rid of the unemployment and the distress that that causes in those areas. It is for that reason that I feel the metropolitan authorities have the greater part to play.
I want to dwell, in the last few minutes that I have, on the positive achievements of the metropolitan authorities. I wish to dwell upon one particular service, which my noble friend Lady Lockwood briefly mentioned; that is, the legislation regarding the consumer. The increase and present extent of consumer legislation also includes not only that passed in this Parliament but also that included in the EEC directives. It goes far beyond the consumer legislation, far beyond those things that we used to remember under the old Weights and Measures Acts. It goes into all kinds of protection—stemming the flow of dangerous imported goods, and so on. I fail to understand why the Government do not try to stop these more vigorously than they do—particularly when one sees the toys being imported into this country which are lethal for children to play with. The metal is jagged, and the paint is lead paint. These things could he stopped at the ports rather than be allowed to come on to the markets and become a problem for trading standards officers. While the department are doing everything possible to protect the standards of British goods, they are being destroyed by these cheap imports.
The CBI itself is cognisant of the work of the trading standards departments, and works alongside them. I think it was in the Yorkshire area that the CBI

307
contributed finance to investigate whether pure wool was being used in garments. In the Sheffield authority, they have been trying to overcome counterfeit articles. This fight by the trading standards officers is an important part of the work of the metropolitan authorities. It needs the complete monitoring of all kinds of services—services that are provided to other local authorities. A case in point appeared in the Birmigham newspapers a few weeks ago. Sausages that were being supplied to an adjacent local authority were not even up to government standards, and contained only half the amount of meat specified in the contract undertaken with the other local authority. If we look at the national press, we will see that over any period of time it is the metropolitan authorities that are monitoring this sort of service well. It is in that service that they are most effective in looking after not only the housewife as a consumer but other authorities and also government departments. It might be premature to ask this question, but it is an important one. What is the Government's thinking regarding the future of this service? That is the question I would pose.
In conclusion, may I say that 10 years is the period of time during which the metropolitan authorities have been in operation. It has been a difficult 10 years, starting from scratch and working upwards. I have used the example of the trading standards officers, but there are also the transport facilities. All these services started from scratch and are performing excellent services within the space of ten years—bearing in mind that they had to compete with the powerful district interests around them. As my noble friend Lord Dean has said, the conflict and the tensions were acute when they started; but there is now comparative harmony—harmony because (as I said previously) these areas are what one could almost call the derelict areas of Great Britain. It is for that reason, perhaps, that they spend more money than anybody else; because what they are trying to do is to pull themselves out of the depths of despair caused by unemployment, not through their own fault.
It is perhaps because they are recognising those problems and recognising that the Government are not doing sufficient to help them that they are now working in harmony together to get the whole conurbation back to the thriving, thrusting areas that they were. Other speakers today have said that there needs to be a review of local government. It might be that we could have another review. But let it be a proper and full investigation, as others have said; because I can see that what the Government intend to do is to destroy a tier of local democracy, simply for the purpose of party government and political expediency.
The White Paper (Cmnd. 4276) of February 1970 said:
"In view of the time, effort and disturbance which such change involves"—
and that was the setting up of the two-tier structure—
"the new structure must be designed to last in its essentials for many, decades".
Is one decade too long for the Government to stomach?
6.38 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, in following my noble friend Lady Fisher I should like to endorse what she has said and, indeed, what all speakers have said about the debt we owe to my noble friend Lady Lockwood for introducing this debate and relating our current problems to the very important study which has been prepared by the Institute of Local Government Studies of the University of Birmingham. I am sure that it is right that we should try to learn from the experience of other countries, because it is all too clear now that in this country we have not got a democratic system of government that is the envy of the world. Indeed, the way we have gone down the league table from Division 1 to being almost on the point of applying for reelection at the bottom of Division 4 rather suggests that we should seek to learn rather more from other countries. No doubt today, quite properly, the debate is related, as my noble friend Lady Fisher has related it, to the Government's current proposals that are now under consideration.
Yesterday being St. Valentine's Day, I understand that two charming ladies from the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Council brought a Valentine to the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment. I read about that in the Sheffield newspapers only this morning; otherwise I should have contrived to see that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate was similarly honoured. Since argument seems to be unavailing, perhaps we should try in this way or in other ways to persuade the Government to be a little more lenient to the metropolitan authorities. Any any rate, today we are indebted to the noble Baronesses in the House because the burden of the debate has been carried by them. Four noble Baronesses have taken part in the debate.
I was struck by the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, when she said that perhaps there is a great significance in what has happened in local government because of the development of local radio and television services. She spoke, quite rightly, of the immense impact that these are having, not only locally but nationally. I personally welcome the development of both independent and BBC services on a regional basis: they do a great deal to bring together regional problems. But it is not necessarily the case that it is the metropolitan local politicians who get the most publicity. Certainly in South Yorkshire the best-known local authority leader is the leader of a district council and not of the metropolitan council.
However, I think the noble Baroness was right in saying that it is extremely important. I remember in another place a colleague saying that when he spoke on television not only did he speak to more of his constituents in those few minutes than would normally be possible in his whole political career, but at that time he was also speaking to more Members of Parliament than when he addressed another place. I think we can probably say also that when a Member of this House appears on television he is likely to be addressing more of your Lordships than he would have the privilege of doing when speaking in this Chamber.
Like my noble friend Lady Fisher, referring to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, I had grave doubts

309
about the setting up of metropolitan counties; and, like the noble Baroness, I still have those doubts because I still believe that single-purpose authorities are the most effective on the whole, if for example, in cities of the size of Manchester and Birmingham and my own City of Sheffield, it is possible. I can see that there are problems in other parts of the country. What is needed is to have small area representation to deal with essentially local, village type problems—parish councils with enhanced powers, on the other one hand—and then possibly larger authorities than the present metropolitan counties are. I notice that this happens to be conclusion No. 3 of the report that we are considering. On page 57 it says—
"If decisions are to be kept local, two levels of decision-making are required—local and metropolitan".
I think the final conclusion is one of immense importance:
"The metropolitan authority will inevitably have a difficult and often controversial role; it needs good government support and backing."
One of the difficulties, certainly in the case of South Yorkshire, and also probably for all metropolitan councils in recent years, has been that not only have they not had good Government backing but the Government of the day has done its best totally to undermine all the activities with which they were concerned. I do not know which of the well-known publicity bodies was responsible for streamlining the Government's White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, Cmnd. 9063, but, whichever it was, I should like warmly to congratulate them on the biggest piece of whitewashing and recasting of history that it has been my misfortune to come across. Reading this document, no one would believe that Conservative Governments had anything to do either with the setting up 20 years ago of the GLC or, more recently, with the setting up of the present metropolitan county councils. In fact, section 1.3 says:
"The reorganisations of the 1960s and the early 1970s were typical of their time. It was a time when resources seemed to be freely available, and when it was assumed that growth would automatically provide the funds for ever-increasing expenditure. It was also the heyday of a certain fashion for strategic planning, the confidence in which now appears exaggerated."
It goes on and on about various problems, particularly in paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11 and about how difficult it was for the GLC and the MCCs to find roles for themselves. In paragraph 1.12 it says that this was a recipe for conflict and uncertainty—
"A strict interpretation of the upper-tier role, as envisaged in the legislation, would leave members of these authorities with too few real functions. The search for a wider role brings them into conflict with the lower-tier authorities. It may also lead them to promote policies which conflict with national policies which are the responsibility of central government".
There may be something in all this. The surprising thing is that I recall when in another place spending many hours telling the the Government that this was exactly what would happen in the case of the GLC and in the case of the Government reorganisation of 1973–74. I believe that in this place an even larger number of days (not hours) was spent on opposing the proposals concerning the GLC. I have no great expertise in this area of local government, but I do not feel that the present structure is necessarily right. There is a lot to be said for a metropolitan authority on the lines of the old London County Council rather
310
than on the lines of the Greater London Council. Certainly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said emphatically, it is unbelievable, looking round the world, that the capital city of this great nation of ours should not have some form of representative government. It is unbelievable that the Government of the day should be coming forward with that kind of proposal.
Of course, one can criticise a great deal of what has happened in some local authorities. In particular I would say to the Government—because we are all involved in this and the mistakes that are being made will be at the expense of the whole community and not merely to the political cost of the present Government—that to rush into changes without realising what they are doing could mean a repetition of some of the problems, the very real problems, in relationships between the new district councils (many of them the old city councils of previous decades) and the new counties. Now, after the long and, in some cases, bitter teething experience, I believe that they are in a position to make a real contribution in the areas they serve.
Certainly in South Yorkshire, the area I know best, while there was perhaps the greatest hostility initially, it is now widely recognised that the Government's proposals would be a disaster for the people there. One of the controversial decisions they have taken in South Yorkshire is to provide very cheap transport. This, of course, costs money but at the same time they have got a much bigger usage of public transport, and against the actual costs one has to set the increased congestion of roads and the building of new roads that would otherwise have come about.
As transport Minister, I remember well the first difficult decision I had, because I had to bring in the transport supplementary grant, which was a legacy of the outgoing Government in 1974. I had to give Tyne and Wear by far the biggest percentage of that grant, or else one had to stop their ambitious proposals for a metropolitan transport organisation serving the whole of the North-East area. I read only the other day in some expert transport journal that this is now regarded as a model which should be followed internationally as well as nationally. It is a great success, and I understand there are many demands for it to be extended in Tyne and Wear itself. But initially that was a matter of very great controversy.
In conclusion I would say this: not only would the history of this country but that of the United States have been very different, going back some centuries, if one had paid more regard to what I believe is an essential principle of democracy: that there should be no taxation without representation. That was the factor which concerned the American colonies, and that is what the present Government, in 1984, are ignoring in setting up joint boards.
The Government have already set up similar bodies to run the water industry. The water rates that we pay are not a proper charge for the water that we use. They are a form of taxation. And how water charges have grown since the joint boards took over from the local authorities! I see no reason why that will not be the case with these proposed joint boards. And we never found a satisfactory way of providing a proper joint

311
board system for running the polytechnics and further education.
The only case that the Government have made for their proposals is I believe wholly political. We all accept that there is scope for improving the structure of local government. But let it be as a result of a proper study, prepared by an independent body, not by means of a public relations paper, which is all one can say about Streamlining the Cities. If there are to be further proposals, let us consider the history of local government and how we come to be where we are. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will assure us that the views which have been expressed today will be taken fully into account by those who are thinking about the structure which is to replace the authorities that they propose to abolish.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on a most interesting and enlightening debate. If it has done nothing else, it has made me examine critically a report which. I must admit, under normal circumstances I should have looked at somewhat cursorily. However, it came as no surprise to me that most noble Lords could not resist the temptation to comment on the Government's own proposals for changes in metropolitan government. I shall return to those in a moment. In the meantime, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for the measured way in which he put his or, perhaps, the Alliance's—could it be that they coincide?—views.
Let me deal first with the immediate subject of our debate. The study by the Institute of Local Government Studies on The Government and Administration of Metropolitan Areas in Western Democracies is a useful but limited piece of work. It gathers together information about 13 metropolitan areas in eight countries that is not readily accessible elsewhere. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the immediate impression I gained was one of great variety, both in the overall arrangements for local government in each country and the particular methods of governing metropolitan areas. That is hardly surprising. Despite some similarities, the situation in each area is bound to be significantly different. After all, both the history and the thinking of the countries involved are significantly different—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I can assure the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and I did not exchange notes before writing our speeches. However, I failed to find any common thread or any relationship with our own metropolitan government—past, present or proposed.
The report itself readily admits that the institutional arrangements in one country can rarely, if ever, be translated directly to another country. At best, we can make sure that we are aware of the various possibilities represented by the methods adopted elsewhere and make sure that some of the experience abroad is taken into account in devising any new proposals. But local government is local, a point that I made at Question Time yesterday, and it is much less easy to make simple international comparisons than in some other areas of public affairs. Twelve years ago I bought a
312
business. The first management exercise I undertook was to identify what was being done, why, who by and did it have to be done by him or her or would another process obviate it? The Government's aim has been to devise a local government structure appropriate to the needs of London and the other metropolitan areas. Our primary concern has been to look at the situation in those areas and the recent experience of local government structures.
I recognise that the metropolitan county councils in particular believe that the study we are debating shows up some defects in the Government's proposals. They, of course, commissioned the work and they have since tried to make much of the really rather tentative conclusions that the author has reached. This is all part of a major publicity campaign being waged by the opponents of abolition in which they have given a most misleading impression. It involves millions of pounds and many full-time staff—professional lobbyists, publicity organisations and so on—paid, incidentally, by the ratepayers. In passing, why can these bodies find enough money for this sort of activity and not enough for what they regard as real services? I cannot equate it at all. I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to set the record straight.
The main rationale behind our proposals is that the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils are an unnecessary tier of government. It seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has voted herself the monetarist of the Opposition Benches. I can tell her that finance is only a spin-off, not a main reason for the Government's plans. The GLC and the metropolitan county councils have not found it possible to establish a proper role for themselves, given the range of powers that they have in comparison with the role of the lower tier—the boroughs and districts. One symptom of this lack of a real role has been the attempt to enter policy areas—even foreign policy—that are quite outside the proper business of local government.
Clearly nothing in this paper or anywhere else suggests that there should be more tiers of government than are necessary, but I notice that one of the study's conclusions is that two tiers are inevitably necessary. But why? They were not so in the past, as several noble Lords have mentioned. This seems to arise from the proposition that metropolitan areas must be treated as a homogeneous whole. I note that the metropolitan counties claim that, if decisions are to be kept local, two levels of decision-making are required. You cannot get more local than the boroughs.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the Minister is correct and sincere in saying that the Government do not consider that there is a case for two tiers, why are they leaving 60 per cent. of the country alone and retaining a two-tier system of government there?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord must not quote me out of context. I said that there is no logic in having two tiers in the metropolitan areas. There is plenty of logic behind retaining the county system in non-metropolitan areas, but that is not what the debate is about. So we approach this question from a rather different point of view. Having a reasonable size for the basic unit of government in urban areas,

313
capable of carrying on most of the executive and operational tasks, we considered whether the remaining tasks do genuinely give rise to the need for an additional, separate tier of government. We concluded that they do not. We were not alone in that view. In March 1979, Mr. Livingstone, the current leader of the GLC, was reported as saying that abolishing the GLC would have been a major saving and would have released massive resources for more productive use. He went on to say:
"and I think there would have been a lot of support on the Labour side for that, provided that adequate powers were devolved down to the boroughs, and not absorbed upwards by central government".
We plan exactly that.
We believe that much can be done by voluntary co-operation, particularly the provision of specialist staff and services. This is something that local government well understands—for example, in joint purchasing of supplies, of which noble Lords have much more experience than have I.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, gives me food for thought. He appears to have got all this so wrong that I shall have to read most carefully what he said. For example, some—just a few—operational activities are more conveniently handled through the mechanism of a joint board. This has a separate legal identity from its constituent members and to that limited extent an independent life of its own. Some have suggested that our proposals for three joint hoards in each of the metropolitan counties are an implicit recognition of the continued existence of a separate tier of government.
That misunderstands our intention. Joint boards —notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary subscribed to, I regret to say, by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for whom I have a lot of respect—are not quangos, and nor are they a separate tier. They are a mechanism for co-operation between the basic, democratically-elected authorities. The members will be appointed by those authorities from among their own elected councillors. The joint boards will thus be closely linked to the basic authorities, and have nothing to do with appointments by the Secretary of State. I must take issue, too, with the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, who regarded them as taxation without representation. From the definition I have just given, he will see that that is quite wrong.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will give way, the great problem of joint boards is that none of the members is responsible for the totality of the expenditure. They each go back to their own authorities and say, "I was against it, but the others wanted it". That is the whole problem with joint boards, where no one is accountable to the public from whom they take the money. If they need subsidies for transport of any kind—and whether the Government run it or anyone else, it has to be subsidised if it is going to work—then that money has to come out of taxes. Equally, the present cost of water is a form of taxation because the comparison between what we pay now for water and what we paid when the local authority in Sheffield ran it is enormous.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has somewhat confused me. Does he mean, then, that democracy only works when you win?
Lord Mulley: It means, my Lords, that democracy requires that you have a vote over the people who make these decisions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as joint boards are comprised of councillors who themselves have been directly elected, as we have already established, this must be democracy in action. I am afraid that I cannot take the point of the noble Lord.
There will be no upper tier with a separate mandate claiming superiority because of its apparent size and power. The basic authorities will obviously not agree on all matters, but they will have a guarantee that their view has been put in the formulating of any overall decision and that they can participate fully in the process of making decisions affecting the urban area as a whole. After all, it is not long ago that there was the local government "Keep Local Government Local" campaign. That seems rather to have been lost sight of in the present discussions. I was particularly interested to learn that another member of the Institute of Local Government Studies, Professor Stewart, was the coauthor of a book entitled The Case for Local Government. I see from page 150 of that book:
"The basic units of community government could normally be about 150,000 to 500,000, although in exceptional cases larger authorities might be created. In the metropolitan areas they can be based on the present metropolitan districts".
The book goes on to say:
"No other tier of government should be constituted between these local authorities and Parliament. Where functions of government have to be carried out over wider areas, that should normally be achieved through joint action by local authorities. Such joint action is never easily achieved, but it is easier to achieve between adjoining authorities each with its own responsibility for its own area than between two tiers of local government, each with some degree of responsibility for the same area. And it is easier between authorities of equal status rather than between those of unequal status".
I am not trying to quote my own authority for the part of the speech I have just made. What I am saying is that even within the local authority study organisation which we are discussing now there is quite obviously a divergence of opinion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, underlined that the present report clearly recognises this problem of relationship between various tiers. It speaks of the possibility of giving "special powers" to the higher level authorities to ensure that decisions are implemented. That would be a possibility—but surely the wrong choice in the present situation. It would intensify rather than reduce conflict, and it would require a significant shift of real power towards the more remote upper tier authorities. We believe that the right course is to make use of the existing powerful lower tier, reduce the possibility of conflict by eliminating the separate upper tier, and thus ensure that the focus for planning and execution is in the basic unit of government.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour pointed out that local government has to operate within the particular fiscal strategy of the Government of the day. I agree with her that until recently that was the local government ethic. It does not apply today. I suggest

315
that her speech will repay a lot of study—not least by myself. She did not say, however, as I understood her, but as accused by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that local government should agree with the politics of the Government of the day. I agree with the noble Lord: that would be an unhealthy nonsense. My noble friend was making the point that local authorities are responsible for a very high proportion of local public spending—some 25 per cent.—and she is obviously quite right. Any Government of any complexion would ignore that at their peril.
While speaking of money, I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about the costs and savings which may arise upon abolition. That is not something we can go into in detail this evening, but the Government are confident that the removal of a whole tier of government will certainly give significant potential for savings to be made. We will make sure that the potential is realised. We are very conscious of the experience of previous reorganisations. One has to learn something from history, I suggest.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the Minister will give way, have the Government yet started costing this? Will it be costed, and will we know the costing at some time? I am sure that the noble Lord does not have the answers tonight, but as he raised the point I wonder whether he can give some indication.
Lord Skelmersdale: That is a fair question, my Lords. The Government do not have the costings and they will not be able to produce the costings until we see exactly what levels of employment and redistribution of staff will be involved between, for example, the metropolitan councils and the joint boards. There are also, of course, specialist staff who, by the very nature of things, will have to be transferred to the boroughs. Until we know about that, there is absolutely no hope of making a definitive calculation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, and many other noble Lords, asked about a prolonged and detailed study. I believe those were the words the noble Baroness used. This study has been used to bolster the call for a major inquiry before we proceed to change the arrangements in metropolitan areas. This is the view taken by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities as well as by the six metropolitan county councils individually. We have considered that view carefully. However, we do not believe that the inevitable delay which an inquiry would cause can be justified in terms of the possible outcome of such a study.
Local government reforms in both 1963 and 1972, as has been remarked tonight, certainly followed major studies, and no doubt that was to some extent helpful, at least in creating a climate of expectation of change. But the main decisions are essentially political, with a small "p"—not party politics, my Lords. They represent difficult judgments on the appropriate balance between the size and powers of various authorities. There is no simple analytical method for arriving at the "correct" basis for local government in a particular area. After an inquiry, the same judgments would have to be taken and an important and valuable reform made.
316
Certainly I do not believe that an inquiry would very usefully add to the amount of information on the subject. If noble Lords have seen even a fraction of the massive amount of material produced in response to our White Paper, they may well agree that most of what can be said has been said. That pales into insignificance beside the absolute mountain of post received as a result of the recent consultation period, which ended on 31st January.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, challenged me to take into account what has been said in the House this evening. I very readily do that. I am the first to see that valuable points have been made by some very experienced speakers. I shall certainly make sure that they are all included in the consultation process.
Lord Mulley: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this is a Short Debate, and I am sure your Lordships will want to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the mover of this Motion, close it. If there are more interruptions, she will not be able to do so.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we intend to press ahead without the delay of an inquiry, but of course this House will have a full opportunity to debate the major legislation that will be needed, and I look forward to constructive discussions on the details of our proposals when the details are formulated. This is not an appropriate stage to consider at length the detail of our proposals—Lady Fisher's trading standards department, and so on—but I assure her the point will be looked at carefully.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord write to me with the reply, or shall I have to wait until the Government make a decision?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think it would be better to give a composite answer to all the points raised both here and elsewhere on the future of local services, but if the noble Baroness would like me to write to her specifically I shall be glad to oblige.
The Government have had many thousands of responses to the White Paper Streamlining the Cities. It is taking us a little time to digest them all. I cannot say now what changes, if any, we shall make to the detail of the arrangements we propose to replace the GLC and MCCs. I shall have to ask the House to be patient while we look at all the material that has been sent to us.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to this international study. As I said at the outset, it is a useful paper to have. However, it is clear that, even when we look into it for some lessons that might be applicable to our situation, we find no clear message from the diversity of international examples. We must continue to rely largely on our own knowledge and experience of the situation in our own metropolitan areas. The Government stand by the basic proposition that the GLC and MCCs are an unnecessary tier of government. Our proposals seek to remedy that by building upon the powerful and more local units of government already in existence to provide a better system free of the tensions, friction and duplications of the present.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I believe it is the custom for the mover of the Motion for a short debate not to reply to all the points made. Perhaps that is as well, because I might have been tempted to follow the noble Lord the Minister down one or two tracks which I do not think were actually referred to during the course of the debate. Indeed, it seemed to me on occasions that he was replying to a debate that he thought was going to take place but which did not take place.
Some very important and fundamental issues were touched on in the debate. We looked not only at the structure and functions of local government, and compared them with the continental report, but also at the fundamental nature of democracy itself and how democracy interrelates between national and local government. On those fundamental issues it appeared that the noble Lord the Minister had nothing at all to say. In that respect I feel somewhat disappointed by his response.
If I may say so, I was also somewhat disappointed when I saw the total list of speakers this afternoon. While the title might be somewhat off-putting, I think all those who have experience of local government know, from both the title and a brief glance at the report, that it contains a lot of important principles and important trends in local government which I would have thought would be useful for this House to discuss in a more representative way. I really am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for coming into the debate from the Benches Opposite. I would have liked to see a more representative list of speakers.
However, be that as it may, I am grateful to the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. I think a lot of important and useful points have been made. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will, as he has promised, bring them to the attention of his colleagues. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sovereignty: International Law
7.15 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton Lord Paget of Northampton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on rules of international law applicable to the granting and withdrawal of recognition of sovereignty; in the obligations under international law required of a government accepting recognition; and whether in their opinion such rules require reconsideration.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would immediately like to thank those who have been good enough to put their names on the list to join in this debate. If I may, I say a special word of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Home, who was for a considerable number of years one of our best and most successful Foreign Secretaries; and I think upon this subject there are very few people in either party who would reject his advice with comfort.
The Question concerns how and on what terms we should accept new entries to the family of nations. That was once treated as a great question, but today it seems to have been somewhat downgraded. In the 18th century, the concert of Christian States, then numbering perhaps a score, not much more, formed an informal club, and that club gave us the diplomatic system and also assumed the responsibility for world order. Spheres of influence arose; they were not precisely defined, but they were recognised and acknowledged, and they worked. America had the Monroe system; we took charge of East of Suez, the French the Barbary Coast and North Africa; and Russia more or less bossed Central Asia. And each of us accepted that order. It worked. Later, the Ottoman Empire and the Japanese Empire were accepted more or less as country members of the club. But the real authority which looked after order in the world during that time was this concert of the Christian nations. Small states knew their places; they observed their national and private obligations. When they got into debt the powers put in a receiver. Egypt's treasury still works the reforms provided for them by Lord Cromer acting as the receiver of their creditors.
Lord Lever of Manchester: Not the present one, my Lords.
Lord Paget of Northampton: No; an earlier one. Candidates to join this society of nations had their credentials looked at pretty carefully and terms were often imposed. Indeed, when the Turkish Empire broke up and the Balkan States emerged, a condition of recognition was that they should get themselves kings. Monarchy was regarded as the best way of getting durability, sequence, order. I do not say how well that worked, but it did a least work rather better than the presidents who came forward with the dissolution of other empires. Indeed, the terms were different then; circumstances were different. But only recently has it become the case that for entry into this society of nations there were no terms at all. People have joined regardless.
I believe that on the whole the powers maintained world order pretty effectively, certainly very much more effectively than the United Nations have. The world was a far safer place both for the state and for the individual. Indeed, the United Nations have really been the trouble here. The idea was that the victorious powers, united in peace as they had been in war, would keep world order, with possibly a United Nations force, which they operated through the Security Council.
Very unfortunately, the super powers fell out. Both set about ridding themselves of alternative authorities within their areas. The Russians annexed everything east of the Elbe: the Americans produced an anti-colonialism which destroyed the power base of Britain and France and led to a clutter of new states, most of them wholly unfit to carry out their responsibilities within the law of nations. They arrived, mostly, with constitutions which had been granted to politicians who had been trained, if that be the right word, in the constitutional law and customs of a colonial state.
Neither the politicians nor the constitutions lasted long. I do not think a single constitution survived. The

319
politicians were chased out by men who had recognised that power came from the barrel of a gun. They were chased out, mostly, murderously; so what I have described as the assassin state arose. I have defined the assassin state as the state founded on violence, using violence with a succession based much as was the case in the Kingdom of Eli in The Golden Bough—the credential being that the man who murdered the last one succeeded to his office.
That is what has been happening. At the moment, over half the United Nations consists of assassin states. Indeed, it would often seem that the only surviving principle of the United Nations is that the white man is always wrong. It is the blacks who are suffering. The whites, on whose skill and generosity the blacks have depended, are getting tired—particularly the United States of America. The system of sponsorship is on its way out. I do not know how these new states will do without it.
Membership of the United Nations was not intended to be automatic. The rules provide that a new member requires a two-thirds majority and is open to veto. But for some reason vetoes are never exercised, and entry and credentials do not ever seem to have been debated. They may have been, but only on very rare occasions, if at all. In practice, acceptance by the United Nations seemed to be automatic. Coup followed coup. I think one of the Francophone colonies in Africa has had 10 coups with 10 successive unlawful and revolutionary spokesmen moving into a seat in the United Nations. Nigeria has had five. Automatic acceptance in this way by the United Nations of ragamuffin governments undermined the old principle of recognition.
What were we to do? If we recognised them, that tended to sound like approval, and that was the last thing we wanted to give to these new coup governments. But if one did not recognise, what could one do about it? The chap had his seat in the United Nations, so what was to be done? As far as we were concerned, we decided to abdicate our right to withdraw recognition. This was a curious thing. We abdicated our right and decided just to carry on as if the transfer had not happened. We did this, on what one would have thought was a rather drastic and fundamental change, by a Written Answer to a planted Question given in this House. I have a feeling of great admiration that only the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, could ever have got away with that. He did so in April, 1980. There the position stands at the moment.
I do not think it has been a success. It has encouraged the coup system. Thicker and faster new governments come. Less and less is the law regarded. Order has been breaking down, not only at the top level but domestically. Everywhere in the crime statistics the multiple varies between four and ten. It is getting to be a more and more disorderly world.
Then came Grenada. After, I believe, over 100 accepted coups President Reagan—may his shadow never grow less—at last intervened. The assassins were arrested, to the deep gratitude of almost all the people of Grenada. But the forces of disorder rallied the United Nations and the Americans were summoned to the Security Council to answer to the charge of
320
aggression. I think that that, on the whole, gave us a chance. We were in a position to put the Americans under an obligation, if we had defended them stoutly at the United Nations. But we did just the opposite. What was the result? The Commonwealth despised us for our impotence. The United States was outraged by our ingratitude. After all, they had supported us in similar circumstances in the Falklands. It is not unnatural that they should now be twisting our tail in the Argentine. When one looks at that performance, one must admit that our Government are not very good at foreign affairs.
What can we do now? The fundamental question is between order and disorder, and coups equal disorder. We do not have coups in this country—at least, not since 1685. No-one is going to accept an assassin because he has shot Mrs. Thatcher and taken over the BBC. They are accepted when that sort of thing happens in Africa, but we have a deep-rooted sense of legality which makes us coup-proof. That applies to nearly all Europe—it even applies to Italy. We do not have coups here. Coup countries are not properly established states. They do not respect their own constitutions because they have just overthrown them. They certainly do not respect the constitutions of others, or international laws.
There are certain propositions which I believe we ought to consider. Firstly, we should recognise that coup governments cannot do without recognition. It does not need to be universal recognition, but they have to have the recognition of at least most of their neighbours and at least some of their trading associates. Without recognition they are, in international law, ungoverned territory in which the civilised states may take any action they deem necessary to guard their interests. They have no access to international finance. They are substantially unable to trade. An unrecognised state from which essential recognition is withdrawn is really not in a position to carry on government. We should realise that as part of our power. The power to withhold recognition possesses formidable sanctions and it is not the kind of power to be thrown away in an Answer to a Written Question.
Thirdly, we know which countries are liable to coups. Most of them have already had several. We should discuss each as a contingency with our trading and defence partners and when the coup comes we should be ready to act in concert and set out our terms. Nigeria is the latest; it is her fifth coup and fourth general. She has had an oil bonanza but I understand that she is broke. The story has always been the same—corruption, nepotism; the general is going to put it right. Within a year or so corruption and nepotism are back and the brutal violence has increased. It seems to be starting that way. On the news this morning we heard that 35 members of a television crew are to be whipped for being late. Is this the kind of government that we wish to recognise unconditionally? Is it not time we put in some conditions? I think my noble friend Lord Lever will have something more to say on that.
The great issue today has ceased to be communism and democracy. The great issue is order and disorder. On the question of order, quite often we shall find the Russians on our side. They need order, too. I should

321
like to mention Afghanistan and our performance at the Olympic Games. Afghanistan is not our friend. I do not think she could be anybody's friend except upon the basis that mine enemy's enemy is my friend. She has an appalling record. Raiding her peaceful neighbours has been a national sport. I think her only known export is dope. When we were on the receiving end we intervened twice. The only thing I think we can say for ouselves is that we were a jolly sight better at intervening than the Russians, but the morals of it are much the same.
Surely we should be better advised to keep our nose out of places where the Russians are seeking to maintain order and to expect the Russians to keep out of areas where we try to see some order. I refer particularly to Africa. The Russians are in Africa for sheer mischief. They are encouraged in that mischief when we make fools of ourselves over an issue like Afghanistan. It is the wrong issue on which to quarrel. Let us look to this important question of world order and see what we can do about it.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, for the kind words he directed towards me at the start of what he had to say. I would return the compliment by saying that, although he is not the most conventional of politicians, I have enjoyed him thoroughly all my life, in both Houses of Parliament. During the whole of a long political life I have noticed that the noble Lord is always impatient of unreality and pretence. He put down his Question because he felt the unreality of independent small countries which have none of the traditional attributes—economic, military or political —to sustain that status. Then there is the pretence —such countries do exist and I think they will be recognised for quite a long time ahead—that there is some valid code of international law to which these countries must subscribe and on which they should rely for their protection. I have a good deal of sympathy with his approach, for to connive at pretence in international affairs can be very dangerous.
My Lords, I understand our rules. An Unstarred Question is designed to elicit answers to specific points. In this case, we are concerned with the obligations, if any, involved in the granting and the reception of sovereignty—obligations which may derive from international law. The noble Lord has referred to the situation where, in the time of emperors and kings, ordinary citizens might not have been able to define sovereignty but knew it when they met it, and doubts were removed by power. The confusion arose later because of the coincidence of the decolonisation of empires and the simultaneous attempts through the Charter of the United Nations to frame a code of international behaviour for general application.
In this context the noble Lord asks whether the international rules need changing. I am no international lawyer but I should like to ask if there are any rules in international law which affect the donor of sovereignty and the recipient of sovereignty. It fell to my lot to introduce Nigeria into the United Nations. But well before that Britain had transferred and Nigeria had accepted sovereignty without reference to any other authority and without any conditions or
322
obligations attached. All that was over and done with before the United Nations or the International Court came into the picture at all. The conclusion I draw on this somewhat narrow point of sovereignty, although it is an important one, is that in all the other colonial cases none of the new countries—it is as true of Australia as it is of Grenada—compromised their sovereignty when they became members of the United Nations.
That is why I argued in the case of the Grenada incident that there is no foundation in international law from which to condemn Grenada for exercising her sovereign right to seek help against subversion and take-over, and no reason to condemn the United States for exercising her sovereignty by deciding to come to the rescue of that small sovereign territory. That is not an academic matter. For a small country to rely on a code of law in which there is no reality could he a trap which could cost it its independence and its sovereignty. That is why at the time I described international law in this context as immature and as not applying in a case such as that affecting Grenada.
Within recent years, of course, some sovereign powers have voluntarily qualified their sovereignty. There is no need to look further afield than the European Economic Community or the NATO Alliance. Those who are also party to the nonintervention clause in the United Nations Charter have voluntarily accepted a fresh obligation. But I confess that I can see nothing in international law to restrain a sovereign territory from defending itself or from seeking help from another country in doing so.
I hope that over the years there will come to be a more effective international code and that the International Court of Justice will be able to extend its jurisdiction. But meanwhile I do not want to see small countries beguiled into a false sense of security by the pretence that there is an operative code on which they can rely for protection. As I see it, there is not, and to say that there is is to mislead.
I do not want to be drawn into the question of recognition because I know that my noble friend Lord Carrington made a statement on that not long ago. There will be these small countries in the years to come, and it is important to them that they should know their rights in the international field, because as long as they exist they are entitled to feel that they can organise their own security.
I do not envy my noble friend Lady Young answering the debate. International law is a very complicated matter, and I am no authority whatever on it, but I among others shall be very interested in what she has to say, because it is not an academic matter; it could be a matter of life and death for some of the so-called sovereign territories.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships—not only for the reasons that were given by the noble Lord. Lord Paget—and I venture to take up the point on which he sat down; namely, that it is a matter of life and death. Today we stand in the direst peril. The world is divided ideologically more grievously than it was at the time of

323
the ideological divisions that led to all the miseries of the Thirty Years War. Those ideologies are now armed with unexampled weapons of destruction and we have no method—no mature method, if I may take up the word that was used by the noble Lord, Lord Home—of resolving those differences.
But as the noble Lord, Lord Paget, reminded us, out of the anarchy, disorder and wretchedness of the Thirty Years War there evolved a rudimentary system, certainly—at any rate some system—of international law, which for nearly 200 years abated the rigours of violence. So this evening I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Home, in making a plea that our constant objective, even if we go step by step, should be towards evolving a detailed and firm code to govern international relations and institutions which can declare such a code and institutions which can enforce it. That means. I think, that side by side with disarmament—to which the Government are committed, rightly, I think, on a step-by-step basis—there should be the arming of certain international forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, started by discussing recognition. I should prefer, if I may, to start by discussing sovereignty. The noble Lord, Lord Home, said that we recognise a sovereign state, but it is in fact quite easy of definition. It is a state which does not recognise, or indeed is not subject to, any superior of its own sort. Of course, it can limit its individual action by treaty as we, a sovereign state, have limited ours by the Treaty of Rome. It can enter an international organisation which limits its independence, just as we have entered the United Nations. But there is all the difference between a sovereign state and, say, a colony, or states such as, say, the Ukraine or Byelorussia, which are members of the United Nations but are not recognised as sovereigns because they have not adequate and proper control over their own international relations.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, was inclined to suggest that sovereignty should not be recognised, which I take it to mean should not exist, in small, weak states. The existence of small, weak states is a danger in a world which has no system of adequate international law because there are invitations to proceed to change international relations by force, or threat of force.
Nevertheless, one should remember that there are many ancient small states which have enjoyed sovereignty. There is, for example, Luxembourg, and I suggest that it is contrary to every principle, as well as to international decency, to deny sovereignty to a state which otherwise meets the requirements of international comity. After all, the first quality of sovereignty is the right to independence, the right to non-intervention. So the security of these small, unstable states depends on other countries observing the decencies, the proprieties and, one would hope, the legalities of international intercourse.
Of course, it is possible to differentiate by various degrees and limitations of recognition and indeed of sovereignty. But if a state meets the requirements—and they are almost entirely objective; in other words, there is a defined territory, there is an organised society which generally presupposes a government—then it is a sovereign state in international law, and it should be accorded recognition.
324
I should like to ask the noble Baroness some questions. The first is: do the British Government recognise any right of armed intervention even to anticipate what is feared as aggression? We denied that right to Italy over Ethiopia and we were supported by the League of Nations. The Nuremberg tribunal denied it to Germany over Norway and we were undoubtedly, I think, on the point of mining Norwegian territorial waters. Although the case could fall under more than one category, I think that it was internationally denied to this country, France and Israel over Suez. On the other hand, there is the example of the invasion of Dominica on the authority of the Association of American States in 1965, I think. There was the recent example of Grenada which the noble Lord has mentioned. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness would state what is our view of that matter.
Then there is the question: is one entitled to intervene when a government has been usurped by unconstitutional means? The noble Lord, Lord Paget, referred to that. There have been many cases where we have not recognised the right to intervene. I suppose that Spain in the 1930s was the most patent example. It seems to me a very dangerous precedent if one sets oneself up, in the absence of any international body that can adjudicate dispassionately, to judge whether a usurping power is acting unconstitutionally. It has happened, as the noble Lord reminded us, so frequently with coups and revolutions.
I should also like to ask the noble Baroness this. How far does the right to sovereignty, which I equate with the right to independence and the right to nonintervention, fit in with human rights? I was engaged as counsel in the Russian brides case. There, the Soviet Government denied the right of Russian citizens who had married foreign subjects to go abroad to join their husbands. They defended that decision on the grounds that it was a purely domestic matter. But, when the matter was debated in the General Assembly—it never arose in this form in the English courts—it was resolved, I think I am right in saying, by pointing out that the Russian action conflicted with the human rights provisions of the United Nations and therefore could not be considered as a purely domestic matter. We have now got the universal declaration of human rights. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could say how far sovereignty is limited by the obligations of human rights.
That brings me to my next question. The right to non-intervention, I think, clearly carries with it the right not to have the regime subverted. It is not only direct aggression that is illegal in international law as infringing sovereignty; it is also subversion. What about radio broadcasts and television broadcasts? What is the official view about them? There are certain extremes that, I suppose, are very easy—for example, the British Council sort of case, drawing attention to the significance of Shakespeare and Dickens. That would be one extreme. At the other extreme would be an incitement to rebellion. But what about a broadcast, say, which sets up the virtues of parliamentary government and implies thereby criticism of totalitarian regimes? Does that not again indicate the need for some body that could adjudicate impartially and dispassionately on the nature of the

325
transmission? It also involves the question of jamming. I should be grateful to know what is the Government view on that. It has very generally been held that a state has a right to jam broadcasts as part of its right to self-defence. But surely that only applies if the broadcast is, in effect, an act of aggression, an act of intervention. It can hardly apply, one would have thought, in law or in the morals that lie behind the law, to what I have called the British Council type of broadcast.
I should like to deal briefly with recognition. I think, if I may say so, that the problem arises in other forms in addition to those that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, signified. It certainly occurs on the appearance of a new state. I suppose that Israel is the classic example. Oddly enough, the first to recognise Israel was the USSR. The United States withheld recognition on the ground that the territorial area had not been properly defined. It had not been properly defined because, to our shame, we abandoned the mandate without a proper political solution. But today it is defined. Yet the Arab states, apart from Egypt, I think I am right in saying—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—still withhold recognition.
The situation calling for recognition also arises when there is a change of government outside the constitutional form—the coup or the revolution, to which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, referred. It would be very useful to have a limited type of recognition that deals with that. Perhaps our own practice of de facto recognition as opposed to de jure recognition could be used to make the distinction, the recognition being limited to de facto not only until the political situation was sufficiently defined but also to mark our disapproval of unconstitutional action. The point is arguable because it could be said that that is a form of intervention. Nevertheless, there is a problem there that has to be faced.
The third situation involves territorial changes, especially those achieved by force and involving the extinction of states. The classic example is the extinction of the Baltic states after the last war. It is true that they were occupied by Russia, which set up puppet governments which invited the takeover. But that is a situation which calls for our Government to define their attitude to recognition.
I do not suggest that all of these situations from the past should be taken up, like taking up the drains because there is a nasty smell. However, I do suggest that a defined policy for the future is required and especially that we should not accede readily to the requirements of puppet governments. There is only one other point that I would venture to make and that is, that a premature recognition is an unjustifiable act, in my respectful submission, in international law because it involves intervention in the affairs of another state. Perhaps the noble Baroness will deal with that matter as well.
In the end recognition is a political judgment arising from a factual situation, the question about the factual situation merely being: is there a defined territory? Is there an organised community? And does that organised community accept a government? If that exists, then in international law there should be recognition in one form or another. The only question
326
is whether our own distinction between de facto and de jure recognition is valuable and sufficient.
I ask the noble Baroness: do other states draw that distinction? We started drawing the distinction at the beginning of the last century. Certainly, the United States at that time, in view of its own revolutionary history, did not draw that distinction, but it seems to me of value in two circumstances. The first is pending the ascertainment of who is to come out on top. Earlier, I gave the example of the Spanish Civil War. In 1936 we accorded de facto recognition to the Nationalist Government as sovereign in the area under their control; not until 1938 did we accord de jure recognition of their sovereignty over the whole of Spain. That seems to me to be a valuable distinction. It also occurred after the Russian Revolution in 1917. I do not think that it was until 1921 that we accorded de facto recognition, and it was not until 1924 that we accorded de jure recognition. The withholding of the de jure recognition and perhaps the de facto recognition was perhaps justified because of the civil war. But it means a political judgment on a foreign régime which is liable to be a source of danger in international law.
I shall end as I began with a plea that it should be a constant object of British foreign policy to build up—it has been done a little, but not enough—a code of international law as detailed as possible, to be declared by respected and independent institutions of law, the courts, or arbitration boards. And there should be sufficient force—and even economic force will generally be sufficient, if united—to vindicate their decision.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Lever of Manchester: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is deeply indebted to my noble friend Lord Paget for provoking this stimulating debate, and is deeply indebted to those who have followed him for their thoughts. I do not say that I endorse every single word of my noble friend's speech, but I remain once again deeply in his debt because of his fearless assault upon humbug and his passionate devotion to presenting reality for our consideration. I am even very strongly on his side, with deep regret and a good deal of trepidation, on the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I bow, of course, to the noble and learned Lord's views on all matters of law, national and international, but this is a political issue, as he finally came to recognise. My noble friend Lord Paget was right; the noble Lord, Lord Home, is wrong; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is wrong in rebuking him for focusing the attention of the House upon the recognition of sovereignty rather than on the question of sovereignty itself.
If we venture into the area of who is sovereign, and our own views on that matter, we enter into the area that the noble Lord, Lord Simon, entered so copiously, of expressing wishful dreams about how other nations should behave and how, in due time, the world should constitute an authoritative court that will pronounce an equally authoritative code of ethics, and equally enforce that code of ethics. I share the noble and learned Lord's wishful dreams, but they are not an immediate and practical possibility, at any rate within

327
the realm of a debate on an Unstarred Question. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Paget was right and very practical when he said that we should concern ourselves about the terms on which we give de jure recognition to other countries and other countries' sovereignties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that this depended upon a political judgment in the end, and not merely upon the objective facts.
If we are all satisfied that the local cannibal has taken charge of an area that we may call, for example, "Utopia" in the centre of Africa, and that by conventional tests his subjects, in so far as they have a not too copious admission to the expression of their individual opinions, appear to be coerced, bludgeoned and bewildered into accepting whoever the latest cannibal is who is in charge of their affairs, it does not oblige civilised governments to pronounce that they will confer diplomatic recognition upon that local cannibal. He has all the facts established in his favour except one, and that is that we do not think it will be an advantage to the comity of nations if we accord to him the full diplomatic recognition which gives him the right to set up an embassy in this country which can import arms in diplomatic bags and munition the local gangsters as required to murder the enemies of the cannibal, or of any of his family.
These are not just hypothetical possibilities. They are in fact the demeaning humiliations that have been experienced by all the great states of the world in the last decade. Therefore, I heartily applaud my noble friend Lord Paget in wanting to create something much simpler and much more readily achievable than that world bliss which is very properly the object of former Foreign Secretaries and of noble and learned Lords, but which is beyond the grasp of simple provincials like myself seeking to make a modest addition to the security of nations. We want the Government to tell us whether they have given any thought to creating a coherent code of conduct which they will expect from countries, not after but before they grant those countries full diplomatic recognition as sovereign states. To be honest, I doubt whether they have.
Again, one of the sad aspects for a simple provincial who unexpectedly arrives in government by a series of convolutions is that he is astonished to find that all the great questions which he thinks the powers-that-be will be reflecting upon, analysing and rendering into some sort of coherent order are never considered at all. I doubt whether anyone in the Government or in any department of government has given thought to what changes in our terms for recognising sovereignty—not knowing that it exists, but of recognising it—are required in the modern world. Or do we have to act on rather juvenile reflexes inherited from a century ago and from an entirely different situation—a situation on which my noble friend Lord Paget dwelt so nostalgically and which in some respects we all miss, but not in every respect, as it appears he does?
The situations in the world have changed, and we cannot be content for our Government not to have an orderly view about the terms on which we will recognise sovereignty and confer diplomatic status. I shall not go into the many areas, which are known to
328
everybody, where diplomatic status is abused, or where it is endangered and has endangered the comity of nations. We cannot hope to play a part in organising similar co-ordinated approaches to the recognition of sovereignty of other great nations unless we have some clear, articulated views of our own based on analysis. Not to have them will produce exactly the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Home, referred over Grenada, in which this Government found it necessary to be in sharp conflict with our major ally and in defence of the three gangster murderers who had taken over this hapless little island, probably against the wishes of most of its inhabitants and certainly much to the peril, as they thought, of most of its neighbours. We do not want a repetition of that lack of coherence; we want some thought given to the matter.
There is nowhere where the changed world requires this thought more closely than in economic and international affairs, and nowhere where the dangers will be greater if we do not work out some coherent response to the question of granting sovereignty in emergencies and seek to get like-minded great nations to go along with us in those principles.
In this modern, inter-dependent world it is not a very difficult task. We are living in a world in which vast financial and economic interests exist in the hands of small states and their nationals. Very vulnerable small states and their nationals have claims for hundreds of billions of dollars and pounds. They own enormous percentage shares—I shall not weary the House by reciting how important some of these shares are—in some of the greatest enterprises in the United States, Britain, Germany and throughout the world. In the event of a change of government in any one of these vulnerable and fragile states, as we are now reacting we shall automatically confer upon the new government (however they arrive and whatever their purposes, their principles and their manner of conduct) the title to all these claims to money, shares, land and interests of all kinds. This could be exceedingly dangerous. I do not want to be tactless and name states, but many noble Lords will have in mind the kind of states which are vulnerable in this way and which might be seized.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this question. Has he not considered that the state which holds these assets is entitled to freeze them and take them over in the event of an illegal action by the possessing state—that is the state which takes over the previous possession? The great example is the United States and the Iranian assets.
Lord Lever of Manchester: My Lords, yes, they did this temporarily. I am not saying that they should not do it; I am complaining about the lack of coherence. As it happens, I approved the action of the United States, but a great many people here did not, and learned leaders were written condemning the United States as undermining the whole system of financial probity in that it had blocked the bank balances of the Iranian Government. Of course, the British Government did not do anything of the kind.
I want to see the great nations making up their minds precisely about that kind of situation, and how

329
they will all react to it. At the moment, to take, for example, a Middle Eastern state with claims worth hundreds of billions of pounds, a small group might take power and possession. Judging by the reaction of this Government to the Grenada situation, that group will immediately be granted access to the bank accounts, safe deposits, shareholdings and land to which the citizens and the country concerned have title at the present time. That is very dangerous, and it is also very dangerous that no kind of concerted reaction policy has been agreed among the great nations.
In the modern world there is a vast range of international financial and economic organisations, which we all support and which are crucial to the reasonable working of a rather anarchic but basically inter-dependent world, and these go into action to some extent based upon the recognition granted to these states as they arrive. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Paget that as a matter of principle we should veto recognition of states that have come into being by a coup. Having abdicated in Africa, we have more or less condemned that unhappy continent to be ruled by so-called countries which, in many cases, are the product of a coup. We have sat back and recognised and given full diplomatic status to gentlemen who have not merely killed their predecessors, as my noble friend regards the precondition, but who have actually eaten them after killing them. Over a period of years we have recognised—and I shall not name them—heads of governments who have not only eaten their predecessors but who, when discontented with their wives, have eaten them, too, as a form of divorce which only has economy to recommend it rather than moral principle.
I do not think that we can interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign state in that way and say that they will not be recognised if we do not approve the way in which the government were formed. Heaven forbid that I should grant recognition to a Government in this country that had murdered Mrs. Thatcher and had come to power because they seized the BBC! But if for any reason the people of this country assented to a change of government—as I hope they will not other than by democratic means—as long as that was effectively done, I think that the world would have to accept it, however much it disapproved.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that that was done between 1642 and 1649, and, although the world did not approve, they did not invade us?
Lord Lever of Manchester: My Lords, I will concede at once any historic fact which is adduced by the noble Lord. As a man who was brought up by his grandparents and parents with a fanatical affection for this country, I still think that we have a deluding view of ourselves about how nice, kind, compassionate and moderate we always are. We sometimes behave in a slightly different manner. Therefore, I am sure that the noble Lord is right in drawing my attention to the occasions when we have acted outside our traditional calm.
I really have been too long. I want to conclude in this way. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Paget, for forcing
330
the Government to do a little thinking about this great question, and, having cleared their own mind, to seek to clear the minds of the other great nations—especially in the financial and economic fields—whose co-operation is required to achieve some reasonable, orderly response to changes in state title. In a world as interdependent as we are today, where these vast assets are held all over the world in all kinds of ways, and with all kinds of consequences from change of ownership, and where a new state power can achieve ownership of assets and have equal power to repudiate the obligations attached to those assets, I hope that we will not hear the humbug which pretends that this sort of coherent policy by our Government and other great governments must await the glorious day when the entire world meets in mass assembly—a sort of fatuous reproduction of the United Nations Assembly at its worst—and sits down and organises the detailed handling of these affairs.
Half-a-dozen great nations have a responsibility, and they must not abdicate it either in the name of pragmatism—meaning they are not prepared to analyse anything—or in the name of bogus democracy by assigning it to a world government which does not exist and is unlikely to exist in the lifetime of even the youngest noble Lord or noble Baroness present tonight.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, for focusing attention on a matter which is of interest to all and concern to many. He deprecates, and rightly, the prevalent system of government by coup—assassin government, to use his colourful phrase—and proposes remedies. All will share his concern; perhaps some of his remedies will command a less complete and less convinced acquiescence. In embarking on the related questions of sovereignty and recognition the noble Lord is on difficult ground. These are matters notorious in public international law for providing pitfalls for the unwary, and indeed not only for the unwary but for the wary as well. Certainly the noble Lord walks with considerable skill, and of course considerable grace as well.
But the ground is not made easier for theoreticians and would-be reformers, because although there are, as we have been reminded, two forms of recognition in international law, the de jure recognition and the de facto recognition, nevertheless there is a tendency, and a long-held tendency, to treat sovereignty and consequently recognition as primarily an issue of fact; a question simply, or mainly, of whether there is effective control and an effective exercise of jurisdiction in the country concerned. That being so, understandably no government itself in the enjoyment of power is anxious, by raising technical queries as to the status or legitimacy of another government, to run the risk of a tu quoque, and possible critical animadversions on its own pedigree and descent. It is for that reason that recognition has been set by eminent international lawyers to be more a matter of policy than of law.
Of course, there are many governments today whose title deeds are no better than false, and who exercise control following a coup and the overthrow of a

331
predecessor, as so graphically referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paget. But in many cases what other title deeds could they have? A coup is evil, but so very often are the circumstances that give rise to it—the denial of the ballot box, and the one-party state. Remedies, therefore, and the exorcism of undesirable methods must depend on the provision of more democratic means of change of government, and it is with these that we should be concerned. I was sorry to see the other day Mr. Mugabe give even a qualified defence and justification for the one-party state.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, dealt attractively and nostalgically with the 19th century. He romanticised agreeably the pattern of spheres of influence of those days, but he must admit that it led to a bitter harvest in the end. Rather than harken back to such a state of affairs we should try to get what help we can from contemporary institutions; in this context, I would say, notably the United Nations and the Commonwealth.
Membership of the United Nations today is the badge of recognition. It commands recognition, and the two are indissolubly and properly linked. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, and the noble Lord, Lord Lever, too, were critical of the role of the United Nations and of the ease by which new membership can be attained, they say, without much study of credentials. But membership of the United Nations is not in law automatic, and should not in fact be automatic. Membership is in effect by election: that is, in the words of Article 4,
"by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council".
This gives in effect a right of blackball to any one member of the Security Council since the favourable recommendation depends on nine votes, including the concurring votes of the permanent members, thus giving a power of veto to any one of the permanent members. I would think that this is an undesirable way of controlling membership since it would obviously, if used, invite retaliation by some other member of the Security Council against some other applicant country simply on political or ideological grounds.
I would like to see explored a better way deriving from the charter. It is true that membership of the United Nations is open to all—all peace-loving states, in the language of the charter— but it is not an unqualified right of entry. The noble Lord, Lord Lever, referred to the desirability of a code of conduct, but of course there is a code of conduct inscribed in the charter. Entry to the United Nations, and therefore the right of recognition which goes with it, is contingent on the acceptance of the obligations contained in the charter, and the ability and willingness to carry them out.
Lord Lever of Manchester: My Lords, I must make clear that the code of conduct I want is a coherent one of the great powers for granting of full diplomatic recognition of these sovereign states, not a pious affirmation by the recipients of it. I want the great states to make up their minds on what they expect from states before they will grant, or continue, diplomatic status to them.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that he is now trying to sever the two things which I have said go together nowadays. It is inconceivable that a member of the United Nations should be denied recognition.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Why?
Lord Broxbourne: The right approach is obviously to see that membership of the United Nations conforms to the code of conduct which is certainly implicit and indeed. I would say, expressed in the charter. If the noble Lord pursues his studies and looks at Article 4 of the charter, there he will see that entry is contingent on the acceptance of the obligations contained in the charter and the ability and willingness to carry them out. That is the equivalent of the code of conduct which he suggested should be the test of recognition.
Lord Paget of Northampton: No, my Lords.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord indicates dissent, but I think he is wrong.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if the noble Lord would permit me, I did say that it was never intended that it should be automatic, although in practice it has become so. That code of conduct is a code wholly without sanction. What I was asking for, and what my noble friend Lord Lever of Manchester was asking for, was that the code should be established by the great powers and it would be for them to judge whether a new state was capable or in a position to conform with it. The straight answer is that most of them are not.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be patient for a moment, I do not want to prolong my observations but I want to respond to these interesting interventions which are so agreeably addressed to me. Of course, the noble Lord did say that. I appreciated it at the time, but what I am saying is that there is a code of conduct within the charter. It is expressly the criterion of admissibility to membership of the United Nations, not only the willingness to put it into effect but the ability to do that. Noble Lords will see this written in Articles 2 and 4 of the charter. The word used is "obligations". I think it is right that "obligations" are not defined eo nomine in the charter, but the purposes and principles are set out. I think the view is taken by commentators on international law that the obligations are to be interpreted by reference to the specified principles and purposes. I would think that this must be so.
The purposes and principles, as the House knows, include promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. There is the code of conduct set out in broad but I think clear terms, and it is an inescapable condition of membership of the United Nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, says that it has fallen into desuetude. In so far as that is so, it is a matter much to be regretted. I respectfully suggest a possible way in which this matter can be dealt

333
with. It seems reasonable and desirable that for application for membership of the United Nations, carrying with it as it does the badge of recognition, a ruling be obtained as to whether the applicant conforms to the specified criteria in the charter. That authoritative ruling could, one would think, be best sought from the international court by way of an advisory opinion in accordance with Chaper 4 of the charter.
I do not think there is a precise precedent for an advisory opinion on a specific case as to whether the conditions are satisfied, but as long ago as 1948 there was a famous advisory opinion on the membership of the United Nations given by the International Court. It would seem logical to extend from the general, as in 1948, with the passage of years to individual opinions which would be within the compass of Chapter 4, although perhaps in a sense breaking somewhat new ground.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say whether the Government would contemplate taking any initiative in this regard. There are requirements in the charter as to the observance of human rights. It would be useful and helpful for the British Government to draw attention to this aspect of the matter. They would do so peculiarly appropriately not only as representing a permanent member of the Security Council, but also as the Mother of Parliaments.
It is difficult to compel countries to practice parliamentary democracy and to renounce the one-party state. But it is difficult also to see how one can hope to end government by coup, the assassin government, where that is the only means available for opting for alternative government. One must hold out hope of peaceful and democratic change if there is to be a renunciation of violent change.
I come to my last point and one that hitherto has attracted little attention in the interesting and eloquent speeches to which we have been privileged to listen today; that is the contribution that the Commonwealth can make in this context. It is a fact that many of the countries where coups take place, where one-party state exists, are, unhappily, Commonwealth countries. This is particularly sad because these countries have a shared legacy in common law, respect for human rights and an attachment to parliamentary institutions. They are the heirs of Burke and Dicey, of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Surely all this can be brought into play in these difficult circumstances to help in solving the problems to which the noble Lord has so rightly drawn attention.
The Commonwealth is one of the three great organisations in which Britain today plays a leading part. The other two are institutionalised; the United Nations with its General Assembly, Security Council and the International Court, and the EEC with its Council of Ministers, its Commission, its Assembly and the European Court of Justice. The Commonwealth alone lacks an institutional structure. Should we perhaps be examining the possibility of strengthening that structure to make more effective its voice in the world in support of the things for which Britain and the Commonwealth have traditionally
334
stood: parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, liberty and the rights of man? Perhaps again my noble friend the Minister will consider whether an initiative could be made by this country to the Commonwealth in this regard. This way I believe that much could be done, not only to help with the important problems raised today by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, but to broaden and strengthen the work of the Commonwealth of which we are still at the heart and centre.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask a quick question? How many nations who are members of the United Nations and who, subsequent upon their admission to the United Nations, have patently flouted the terms and conditions necessary on their application have been denied continued membership of the United Nations by the United Nations itself?
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, there is a power in this regard where a member state is guilty of persistent violation of the principles—and the principles include those great matters to which I have been referring—and a procedure for expulsion by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. What use has been made of that I could not say without notice. My noble friend the Minister (because this is one of the things that Ministers are for) will no doubt be able to supplement and give the ipsissima verba of the matter; but the power is there. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that there would be a natural reluctance to use this power in regard to conduct which is manifesting itself not strictly in the international sphere but within the area of the sovereignty of the nation concerned. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his very interesting intervention.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I have not put my name down to speak. I thought that I might do so only in the event of any idea occurring to me during the course of the debate. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Paget, is concerned with two matters and essentially has put down two questions. The first is this. Should states which are based on violence or coups be allowed to be members of the United Nations? The second question is this. Should we recognise the sovereignty of such states? I am very glad that he has raised these questions, because they are of great importance and we ought to examine them very intensively. On the question of whether states which are based on violence or coups may be members of the United Nations, I was going to make some remarks which have been taken out of my mouth by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. The criteria for membership are the acceptance, the willingness and the ability to carry out the obligations of the Charter, which must be deemed to include human rights. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on that.
What happened in the 1950s when we had this flood of members of the United Nations—states emerging newly from imperialism, as it was called, into independence—was that they were all admitted. It was

335
largely, and I think unfortunately, as a result of bargains of some sort between the two potential super powers: "If you will admit my candidate, my excellent candidate, a wonderfully new democratic state just emerging from colonialism. I will then, if necessary, agree to the admission of your candidate". That was the bargain struck. It was as a result of that, and nothing to do with willingness or ability to accept the obligations of the charter, which resulted in a mass of states coming in. Probably some of them were not suitably qualified under the criterion advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne.
It is difficult, of course, to imagine that anything else could have happened in practice. It was undesirable. I think, but quite comprehensible why it happened. Some people, including myself, at the time expressed doubts based on the evident fact that these countries were not able to accept the obligations of the charter. Nevertheless, our advice was not heeded. What it has come down to now, is that nearly all the states in the world, even very very small ones, have been admitted to membership, and, in practice, it is difficult to imagine that any of them could be expelled, except on the conditions laid down in the charter, which, in practice, obviously could not be carried out. There would be no unanimity among the great powers to do anything of the kind. Therefore, we must admit that the present situation is likely to go on. Practically all the states in the world are likely to continue to be members.
Your Lordships will remember that, from the very start, we agreed that Communist countries should be members of the United Nations. That was agreed at the very start. Whatever one may say, most people would think that Communist governments are essentially based on coups or some kind of violence or force. That was admitted from the start and I do not think that we can, therefore, object to other Communist states coming in; because we admitted that they could come in from the beginning.
On the other question of recognition, I always thought (in my profound ignorance of international law) that you afforded, at any rate, de facto recognition to any government which was deemed, in your opinion, to be in effective control of the country concerned. That was the general criterion. There may have been other criteria but that, in practice, was what was nearly always done. Indeed, it is done even now. We accept de facto recognition when the government is in control, as we think, of the country concerned. Hardly any other criterion emerges.
Of course, de jure recognition is, I think, given only when we have some confidence that it is a reasonable government, that it is not likely to commit any frightful atrocities and, therefore, we might delay granting de jure recognition. But, as I understand it, de facto recognition implies the exchange of some kind of diplomatic representation, and, indeed, the ability to trade with the country concerned. Therefore, what it comes down to now, I think, it is this. Are there any circumstances in which we can suitably withdraw recognition? I think there must be certain conditions in which we should do so. Look at Idi Amin in Uganda. There were appalling atrocities committed by him. They were so frightful that we should have been
336
justified in withdrawing recognition—and I think we did withdraw it eventually. We should be able to withdraw recognition from a state which is governed by a monster, so to speak, as Amin was. That, I think, is a circumstance in which you could withdraw recognition.
But, normally, I think we should find it difficult to withdraw recognition from any state which we have recognised de facto; because, if we did, other countries probably would not do so, and we must think what would happen if we did it and nobody else did it. What could possibly be the advantage for us in those -circumstances? That seems to be the practical consideration which we must have in mind. Therefore, the only question that I think I would ask the Government is this. Would they agree that there are circumstances in which we could withdraw recognition; and, if so, what circumstances? Otherwise, am I right in thinking that we accept the general criteria for granting recognition to any country which I have myself advanced?
8.49 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, there are a few considerations arising out of the debate. First, Lord Home—everything that he says is important. He said that it was undoubted in international law that any sovereign state had the right to invite any other sovereign state to send military assistance on to its territory. All would agree. He instanced Grenada. Here was an undoubted sovereign state, very small. The government collapsed. There was an authority, the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon. I have not seen and I have not heard of any communication from Sir Paul Scoon to anybody except the chairman of the Organisation of East Caribbean States, who at that time was Dominica. The Organisation of East Caribbean States then invited three non-members, Jamaica, Barbados and the United States, to invade Grenada with them. Sir Paul Scoon's immediate comment, as reported in the press was, "I asked for help, not an invasion". It is undoubted that Mrs. Eugenia Charles invited the United States to help with the invasion. I repeat that the public here has yet to see the evidence of what Sir Paul Scoon did, and until that evidence is available we must conclude that was an action taken against international law.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, instanced three organisations in which we had partially surrendered sovereignty: the United Nations, the European Community and also NATO. I think a distinction needs to he made here. The North Atlantic Treaty does not require any surrender of sovereignty from any signatory, so far as I can remember. It simply says that if any of them is attacked or menaced by attack the others shall consult with it about what had best he done in order that full sovereignty should be preserved. Certain arrangements have grown up since, the most conspicuous among which are the command and control arrangements for the American nuclear missiles in this country which do indeed sometimes seem to infringe sovereignty. There is nothing of that in the treaty.
To the noble Lord, Lord Lever, may I make a suggestion? He said that there should be a means of withdrawing diplomatic recognition from countries

337
which are governed by cannibals and which send arms through diplomatic bags to abolish their enemies—
Lord Lever of Manchester: My Lords, may I spare the noble Lord? I said nothing of the kind. I merely said that we ought to have a coherent basis for conferring full diplomatic recognition on states. I do not lay down any rule for anybody. If they prefer to have diplomatic relations with cannibals, that is perfectly okay. And I explicitly repudiated the notion that merely because a government came into being by a coup it should not be recognised. So please do not knock down arguments that I have not advanced.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I stand corrected, of course. My suggestion is this. You do not need to withdraw or withhold diplomatic recognition. I would withdraw, or virtually withdraw, diplomatic privilege from everybody—cannibals and the virtuous alike. The great cities of the world are plagued by diplomats exerting improper privilege, from the greatest to the smallest. I would basically revise the Vienna Convention; it was formulated in a different day and age and is now not much use.
In conclusion, the sovereign state has not served mankind very well compared with—I see that the Government Chief Whip is making his second fiercest face; I shall be very brief.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. We always have a gap in the list of speakers in case any noble Lord may find as he listens to the debate that something he thought might be raised has not been raised; the gap is there so that noble Lords who find this to be the case can come in and make that point. If noble Lords are going to make long speeches in the gap, it is really unfair to the House.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I had spoken for three minutes when the noble Lord interrupted me. I hope he would agree that another 10 seconds may be allowed me to complete the sentence, which was that the sovereign state has not served mankind very well during its tenure, as compared with the tribe, the clan, the federation, and so on which preceded it. It is obviously coming to the end of its road and we cannot see yet what will succeed it. But we are lucky that sovereignty includes the ability voluntarily to surrender to larger frameworks.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this has been an entrancing debate, started, if I may say so, by my noble friend Lord Paget with his usual frank delivery and courage of content. In a debate which includes the matter of recognition, I must tell him in all frankness that at times I do not recognise to which party he belongs. I can only say that it is always a happiness to see him sitting on our Benches. Obviously it was also a privilege to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Home, and to the modest provincial voice of the noble Lord, Lord Lever, who, whenever he comes to this House, brings a very worthwhile contribution. And what a pleasure it was to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who brings not only the experience of a very great
338
politician to this House but also, if I may say so as a humble colleague, that of a very eminent lawyer. And that obviously also very much applies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Having uttered compliments to everybody, can I therefore hope to receive a welcoming reception for some views that I should like to put in a matter which concerns both law and politics? I think we may have become a little confused, if I may say so. We were talking at the very beginning about questions of sovereignty and about the recognition of states and of governments. I think that at times we became a little confused when we were talking about the recognition of states and of governments—and there is a difference.
The only difficulty one ever has in regard to the recognition of states is if a new state is created or an existing one divided. Then one has to wait for certain events before deciding upon recognition of a state, and that does not present very many difficulties, either in law or politically. A very different situation arises when one has to talk in terms of the recognition of governments. That recognition, as has been stated so correctly in the course of this debate, can be divided into de facto recognition and de jure recognition. De facto recognition means it looks as though a government is in control; and de jure recognition, if I may say so with all diffidence, does not go quite so wide as some people have indicated. It merely means in international law, so far as I understand it, that it is a question of its looking as though the effective control is permanent or has the appearance of being permanent: then de jure recognition is given.
Where I think we may have gone wrong is in that it appears to have been implied in this debate—and this has caused political problems to which I shall refer in a moment, together with some interesting political statements, and it has bedevilled this most interesting debate to some extent—that if you accord, as a government, recognition to another government that itself shows that you approve of the nature of the government or of the way that it has got there.
This was a matter that concerned many nations in the course of history. Indeed, in 1930 a very brave Foreign Secretary of Mexico propounded what is known as the Astrada principle. This is what he said:
"the Mexican government is issuing no declarations in the sense of grants of recognition since that nation considers that such a course is an insulting practice and one which, in addition to the fact that it offends the sovereignty of other nations, implies that judgment of some sort may be passed upon the internal affairs of those nations by other governments, inasmuch as the latter assume, in effect, an attitude of criticism, when they decide favourably or unfavourably as to the legal qualifications of foreign régimes".
There has been a plea for reality in this debate, and when one faces reality, as I understand it, one faces in the foreign Ministry of any country the very real fact that you may have citizens within the state whose government you are considering recognising. You also have trade matters with that state which you have to take into account, and, if you set up on your own to be the arbiter, not as to whether there is effective control but as to whether the government have got there constitutionally, then in this day and age you are going to have an almost impossible time. One might then consider, on top of that, whether that government has carried out respect for human rights, which we value

339
so much—and possibly some of us value that much more, or would judge that matter with much more conscientiousness, than a question as to how a government got there and whether a military coup was deserved or not. If we are going to grant or withhold recognition on the basis of human rights—and we have spoken in this debate about the judgment of the great powers—it leads me to wonder whether one great power is entitled to adjudicate upon human rights and then decide, in the midst of the assembly of great powers, that there should be recognition or non-recognition.
I am not going to abuse the time of this House, even though I put my name down to speak and even though I am not speaking in the break in your Lordships' List of speakers. However, it is interesting to reflect upon the way in which we in this country have dealt with the matter of the recognition of other governments and the basis upon which we have worked. I notice that in 1951 it was very much a question of whether our rules were right—whether we were correctly recognising international law in the matter of the recognition of other governments and their sovereignty—when the then Labour Government were faced with the position in Ghana where, as a result of a change in government, those who had preceded the current government in Ghana were charged with certain offences, did not stand trial as we understand trials, and thereupon were executed.
At that time Herbert Morrison was the Foreign Secretary. He was asked upon what principles the Foreign Secretary acts when deciding whether diplomatic recognition should be accorded to foreign governments. In Hansard of the other place of 21st March 1951 Mr. Morrison replied at column 2410:
"The question of the recognition of a State or Government should be distinguished from the question of entering into diplomatic relations with it, which is entirely discretionary. On the other hand, it is international law which defines the conditions under which a Government should be recognised de jure or de facto, and it is a matter of judgment in each particular case whether a régime fulfils the conditions. The conditions under international law for the recognition of a new régime as the de facto Government of a State are that the new régime has in fact effective control over most of the State's territory and that this control seems likely to continue. The conditions for the recognition of a new régime as the de jure Government of a State are that the new régime should not merely have effective control over most of the State's territory, but that it should, in fact, be firmly established. His Majesty's Government consider that recognition should be accorded when the conditions specified by international law are, in fact, fulfilled and that recognition should not be given when these conditions are not fulfilled. The recognition of a Government de jure or de facto should not depend on whether the character of the régime is such as to command His Majesty's Government's approval".
In the midst of a very heavy debate, may I say that one Member of another place was witty enough to ask the Foreign Secretary whether, having described what should be recognised as a de facto or de jure government, the right honourable gentleman thought that his own Government ought to be recognised de jure by anybody, to which Mr. Morrison replied that that bright supplementary question had occurred to him while he was answering the main question.
In 1979 there was a discussion in the other place on the whole question of recognition. In that discussion—I am reading from Hansard of another place of 18th June 1979—when dealing with the
340
situation then (it had been one of a difficult recognition in difficult circumstances) the Lord Privy Seal, Sir Ian Gilmour. Said, after hearing of the reaction of certain governments, which I need not mention:
"My reaction this morning was much the same as that of my honourable Friend. Our criteria for recognition have placed us in considerable difficulties. However, the alternatives also have disadvantages. I am told that virtually all Governments since 1950 have looked at the matter and have not altered the criteria. I assure my honourable Friend that we shall re-examine the matter".
There was a re-examination. The latest in the history of declarations by Foreign Secretaries that I can trace is that which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who I think everybody admits was one of our very great Foreign Secretaries, even if his tenure of office was all too short. This is what he said in answer, as was correctly pointed out earlier in the debate, to a Question for Written Answer. I am reading from Hansard of your Lordships' House of' 28th April 1980, column 1122. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, asked Her Majesty's Government whether they had completed their re-examination of British policy and practice concerning the recognition of governments, and what was the result of that re-examination, to which Lord Carrington replied:
"Following the undertaking of my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place on 18th June last we have conducted a re-examination of British policy and practice concerning the recognition of Governments. This has included a comparison with the practice of our partners and allies. On the basis of this review we have decided that we shall no longer accord recognition to Governments. The British Government recognise States in accordance with common international doctrine. Where an unconstitutional change of regime takes place in a recognised State, Governments of other States must necessarily consider what dealings, if any, they should have with the new régime, and whether and to what extent it qualifies to be treated as the Government of the State concerned. Many of our partners and allies take the position that they do not recognise Governments and that therefore no question of recognition arises in such cases. By contrast, the policy of successive British Governments has been that we should make and announce a decision formally 'recognising' the new Government.
"This practice has sometimes been misunderstood, and, despite explanations to the contrary, our 'recognition' interpreted as implying approval. For example, in circumstances where there might be legitimate public concern about the violation of human rights by the new régime, or the manner in which it achieved power, it has not sufficed to say that announcement of 'recognition' is simply a neutral formality.
"We have therefore concluded that there are practical advantages in following the policy of many other countries in not according recognition to Governments. Like them, we shall continue to decide the nature of our dealings with régimes which come to power unconstitutionally in the light of our assessment of whether they are able of themselves to exercise effective control of the territory of the State concerned, and seem likely to continue to do so".
The position therefore appears to be this—and I ask the noble Baroness for any supplementation she can give to that statement by Lord Carrington. Is it a fact that the answer to this whole debate is that we do not recognise governments any more, and that we decide whether diplomatic status should be accorded to them? Do we do so on the basis of certain principles which are political, and which we decide? And that in none of these circumstances is the question of whether or not we approve of that state or that government a very crucial matter? Is it the position that we have to deal with the practicalities of the situation?
That does not stop us from dreaming, as the noble Lord. Lord Home of the Hirsel, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, dreamt. There

341
is nothing to stop us from dreaming about some international code of ethics under which, if one does not adhere to that code, one goes outside the comity of nations. The noble Lord, Lord Lever of Manchester, said that that is something devoutly to be dreamt about and hoped for. But the practicalities of this world being as they are, one wonders whether Lord Carrington was not correct in the way in which he defined international law obligations and in the way in which he defined the duty of the British Government.
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had a most stimulating debate this evening. I have no difficulty in recognising that the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is a member of the Labour Party—and I was very touched to hear him give such a robust defence of the British Empire. I was even more pleased when he said that he wished to base all his remarks on the principle of reality. But he asked of course an interesting question which bears on important issues—the Government's policy with regard to the recognition of other states; the way in which states become accepted as members of the international community; and the acceptance of new governments. I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify the facts and set out the Government's thinking on them.
At the end of the Second World War there were about 70 independent states in the world. Today there are some 170. This enormous increase has come about largely from decolonisation. The process is almost complete. It is unlikely that many more new states will come into being during the rest of this century. We all listened with great interest—as we always do—to what my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel had to say. He asked whether there were any United Nations rules which affect the donor or recipient of sovereignty. I am sure my noble friend is well aware that one of the aims of United Nations is, and I quote:
"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples".
These principles have guided successive British Governments in matters relating to decolonisation.
Many noble Lords who have spoken this evening—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—mentioned the recognition of states. The criteria which the Government normally apply to the recognition of a state are that it should have, and seem likely to continue to have, a clearly defined territory—with a population, and a government which is able of itself to exercise effective control of that territory, full internal autonomy, and independence in its external relations.
There are, however, exceptional cases where other factors—including relevant United Nations resolutions—may have to be taken into account. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel mentioned the special difficulties faced by smaller states which do not have the traditional means to maintain and defend their sovereignty.
Events in Grenada have recently highlighted this problem, and it was discussed when the Commonwealth Heads of Government met in New Delhi last November, a fact to which my noble friend Lord Broxbourne referred. That meeting requested the
342
Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to undertake a study, drawing as necessary on the resources and experience of Commonwealth countries, on the special needs of small states consonant with the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity which they share with all nations.
In some quarters membership of the United Nations has come to be seen as setting the final seal of approval on a country's independence. This is in fact a little wide of the mark. The United Nations Charter provides that membership of the organisation is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the charter and, in the judgement of the organisation, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. In practice the admission of states to membership is effected more or less automatically by a decision of the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council.
Membership is not, of course, obligatory. Switzerland, for instance, has not sought it. And one or two of the smaller newly independent states have decided that the financial costs of full membership outweigh the benefits. But most have chosen to foster their relations with other countries by taking their place in this international forum. The consequent growth in the number of states joining the United Nations has been welcomed by successive British Governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, asked about expulsion from the United Nations. The situation is that membership of the United Nations once granted is not thereafter unconditional. The charter is a treaty and its rules bind the members. Article 5 provides that,
"a Member … against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership";
and Article 6 that,
"a Member… which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled".
However, while it might be alleged that some states deserve action to be taken against them under these articles, none has ever been suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership or expelled from the United Nations. Partly this reflects the political reality that on such an issue agreement within the Security Council, and particularly between the permanent members, is unlikely; and partly a feeling, which we generally share, that offending states are more likely to be influenced by international opinion if they remain members of the United Nations.
The question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, also concerns the acceptance of new governments. In an ideal world, all peoples would enjoy the right of self-determination in its fullest sense. They would enjoy freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, respect for human rights, and elections held under conditions which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of their government. In fact, many cases are far from that ideal. Many countries have long suffered from a denial of true self-determination through the refusal of totalitarian regimes to tolerate any sort of internal change. Other countries—and not only newly-

343
independent ones—have undergone internal upheavals since 1945, a point mentioned by all noble Lords.
Revolutions and coups vary widely in character. In some cases a change of government through non-democratic means may be for the good, as the people of a country rise up against tyrannical rulers. In others, a small group seize by force what they could never have achieved by democratic means, and proceed to deny their own people what we would regard as elementary rights. In either case, there may be an offence against the previous constitutional order of the state concerned. But there is not thereby necessarily any offence against international law.
Similarly, a change of government, whether democratic or otherwise, does not affect a state's membership of the United Nations or of other international organisations of a worldwide or regional character. Sometimes, as a result of political upheaval, there are competing claimants to a state's seat at the United Nations, and this can create particular problems. And attempts are sometimes made to express disapproval of a government, by challenging the credentials of its representatives in the United Nations and related organisations. The Government view this sort of action with concern. It threatens a principle to which many think the United Nations should aspire—that of universality: and it is rarely directed against the sort of régimes of which noble Lords have expressed disapproval. Let us remember that the number of true, stable democracies in this world is comparatively small. It would be neither possible, nor useful, to turn the United Nations into a club composed only of such countries. The United Nations is at its most useful as a place of brokerage and negotiation between the world's governments as they exist.
There is, of course, a further question. Whenever a coup or revolution occurs in a state, the British Government must consider their own future relations with the government of the state concerned. This was a point raised by many noble Lords. The state continues to exist, of course, as do ties between its people and the British, which may include family and friendship links as well as those of culture and history. We have to remember that it is only the leadership which has changed: and that the circumstances are often confused and the facts slow to emerge.
Against this background, I should perhaps now explain briefly the Government's approach to the question of relations with revolutionary régimes. Until 1980 it had been the consistent practice of successive British Governments to decide the question of recognising a new regime according to whether it commanded the obedience of the mass of the population and whether it controlled the greater part of the state's territory—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. These criteria became well known to Parliament as different countries' changes of regime were debated. Nevertheless, their application often proved difficult in practice. Some revolutionary regimes, for instance, commanded the obedience of the people but not their willing support. Obedience had been obtained by threats. Popular sentiment was suppressed, and individual dissent not tolerated. The
344
view was taken, however, that, if the criteria were satisfied, the British Government of the day should recognise the new régime.
Sometimes this practice was misunderstood and, despite explanations to the contrary, our act of recognition was taken to imply approval. This was particularly unfortunate in cases where there was legitimate public concern about the violation of human rights by the new régime or the manner in which it had taken power, perhaps from an elected Government. Each change of régime by means other than elections, and each coup or revolution—and those were many, of course—thus brought us face to face with an awkward and public dilemma. It also created a minor—and rather artificial—crisis in our relations with other countries precisely at the time when the protection of our interests required a relationship both calm and pragmatic.
It was for these reasons that in 1980 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, announced a change in practice. In his statement of 28th April 1980, he announced that the Government had decided to cease recognising other governments. Today when there is a revolution, we simply—and I quote:
"decide the nature of our dealings with the new régime in the light of the Government's assessment of whether they are able of themselves to exercise effective control in the territory of the state concerned and seem likely to continue to do so".
The noble Lord, Lord Lever, asked about finance, with the possibility of a successor government taking over and perhaps repudiating the assets and debts of its predecessor.
Lord Lever of Manchester: Not the assets, my Lords, the debts.
Baroness Young: The debts, my Lords, of its predecessor. That is not directly dependent on the recognition or non-recognition of the government. Our current practice is consistent with that of our major allies and partners. We naturally consult with other states whose interests are affected by this sort of situation in a similar way to our own.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this question? It was formerly the custom to intervene militarily when there was default. Do I take it from what she said that that is no longer policy? If not, what is now the sanction?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I was on the point of answering some of the questions that the noble and learned Lord had asked. He asked what were the circumstances in which the Government recognise any right of armed intervention? The answer, which answers the question he has just posed, is that any armed intervention could not be regarded as lawful unless the state in which the intervention took place gave a genuine invitation to the intervening state or the intervention could be justified in accordance with the principle of self-defence, confirmed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
The noble and learned Lord also asked me a further question relating to human rights, and I will answer it now. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel said that the entry by a state into any international

345
agreement limits its behaviour—a point with which, clearly, we must all agree—but its sovereignty remains, so to speak, intact. Obviously a state undertaking international legal obligations must regulate its domestic law in a manner consistent with those obligations. There are now almost 80 states which are parties to the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights. I hope this answers the principle queries posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on this question of intervention and recognition of states.
I shall return now to the new procedure on recognition. It left unchanged the practice regarding the separate question of recognition of states and brought our practice with regard to governments into line with that of our major allies and partners. The new procedure has been in operation for almost four years and has given rise to few, if any, problems. Our position is widely understood, and we avoid the difficulty of seeming to bestow, or withhold, the accolade of recognition upon new régimes. The Government have dealings at an appropriate level with the new leaders. That level is determined to a large extent by the strength of the links between the people of this country and those of the other concerned.
I have been asked a number of other questions with which I shall deal briefly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, asked me about the position of the Baltic States. Perhaps I could just say that we support the right of all peoples to self-determination and deplore any infringement of international sovereignty. Successive British Governments, while recognising de facto the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union, have not recognised this incorporation de jure. There has been no change in this policy. He also asked me a question about subversion which might come from broadcasting. Our view is that we would regard the free flow of information generally as being protected under the Helsinki Accords and the covenant on civil and political rights. As well, widespread jamming to keep out such free flow of information would be inconsistent with the obligations undertaken by those states that are parties to the international telecommunications convention. Such jamming would also he inconsistent with the Helsinki Accords and the covenant on civil and political rights.
I hope that what I have said about the change in practice or recognition goes some way to meet the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and other noble Lords who have asked questions about this matter. We have reconsidered the basis upon which we have dealings with governments which have achieved power through force. However, we cannot go further and reconsider our acceptance of the state concerned. Once a country is accepted as a state, it continues as such whether the government are changed by parliamentary elections or by revolution, just as it continues in being when there is neither revolution nor true elections but dictatorship or party despotism. The numerous ties between the state concerned and its people and other states and theirs survive any change of government. There can be no question of somehow expelling the state from the society of nations, any more than of severing the more personal ties.
346
When I said at the beginning of my speech that the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, bears on important issues, I should perhaps also have emphasised their complexity. I have tried to examine, and I hope elucidate, some of these complexities; and I should like to thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to do so provided by his Question.

Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  REMAND PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  REMAND PRISONERS: ACCOMMODATION
  RED BREASTED MERGANSERS
  RED BREASTED MERGANSERS
  GOOSANDERS
  GOOSANDERS
  AGRICULTURE: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  AGRICULTURE: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  CAPTIVE ANIMALS: LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION
  CAPTIVE ANIMALS: LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION
  GCHQ: TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP
  GCHQ: TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP