Sitting of 16 February 1984

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

  GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 23 February.

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 23 February.

  SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 23 February at Seven o'clock.
  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)
  BARCLAYS BANK BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 23 February.

  ULLAPOOL HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Younger presented a bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Ullapool Harbour; And the same was ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 22 February and to be printed [Bill 102.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he proposes to monitor performance of local authorities in meeting their obligations under the new civil defence regulations.
    Mr. Terlezkiasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the relative division of expenditure on civil defence between local authorities and other civil defence agencies.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Performance under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 will be monitored by requiring reports from local authorities. On finance, while the Government are satisfied with the allocation between local authorities and other civil defence agencies, the former have not so far spent up to planned levels. This is one of the matters that we can follow up as a result of our monitoring.
    Mr. Thorne: In view of my right hon. Friend's acknowledged concern for civil defence, will he agree to follow the lead set by the Secretary of State for Social Services in setting up an inspectorate to ensure that a uniform standard is established and maintained throughout the country for this very important service?
    Mr. Hurd: We have not got as far as that, but we are determined that the new regulations which Parliament approved just before Christmas should be followed through. The first step to be taken will be to send a questionnaire to local authorities asking them to report progress in doing so.
    Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. Friend consider doubling the grant-aid to local authorities for civil defence?
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. I do not think that that is required under our present policy. Civil defence is a partnership between local and central Government, and we signal that fact by making grants of either 75 per cent. or, in an increasing number of cases, 100 per cent. for local authority expenditure on civil defence.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: If the view of the locally elected local authority is that civil defence is false security, why would the Minister seek to override that local view?
    Mr. Hurd: Because we are satisfied, and Parliament has agreed, that it is a national and commonsense policy which should be carried through by central and local government for commonsense humanitarian reasons.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend accept that political sensitivity is one of the reasons why seven counties and 63 districts have not yet set up emergency centres? Is there not some strength in the argument that there should be more direct and general Home Office intervention in the provision of civil defence?
    Mr. Hurd: We take the lead in this matter, arid national institutions such as the Civil Defence college at

    365
    Easingwold help us to do so. In the end, however, the resources are to a large extent in the hands of the local authorities, and that is why Parliament put the responsibility upon them in December.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at 6.20 am last Wednesday a police officer in the main police station in Coventry telephoned the speaking clock and set off the nuclear war alert system for Coventry and Warwickshire? Does he agree that as only hundreds of people were woken by those nuclear alarms, the 86p per head per year that is spent on civil defence, as compared with the £16 per week per family that is spent on bombs, shows that the Government believe that there is no defence to a nuclear war?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's conclusions follow in the least from his premise.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend explain to Opposition Members and local authorities which refuse to co-operate or which drag their heels in regard to civil defence that if a similarly irresponsible attitude had been taken in the 1930s hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who are alive and well today would be dead? Will he take steps to consider the possibility of identifying public and commercial buildings which have basements and underground car parks which might be suitable for use as nuclear or conventional bomb shelters?
    Mr. Hurd: That is part of the new regulations which Parliament approved last December. My hon. Friend's first point is absolutely right. It is as true now as it was then that civil defence must deal with a wide range of possible forms of attack on these islands and that across that range the lives of millions of people might depend on the planning and training which civil defence involves.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that Labour-controlled local authorities are just as concerned as any others for the welfare of citizens in their areas, but that they cannot fulfil their obligations under these regulations unless they know the Government's assumptions about the likely targets of attacks, the likely consequences, and the scale and nature of the problem in their areas? Unless the Government are prepared to share those assumptions, local authorities cannot meet their obligations. Therefore, will the Minister give those planning assumptions to local authorities and, in doing so, contribute to the debate on nuclear disarmament?
    Mr. Hurd: We shall include in our forthcoming civil defence circular a statement of the assumptions on which local authority plans should be based. It is no good the hon. Gentleman expecting us to be specific about the form that an enemy attack might take, when we are not privy to the plans of a potential enemy.

    "Weekend" Sentences
    Mr. Andrew Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce legislation to give the courts the power to impose "weekend" sentences.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I shall shortly be issuing a consultative paper seeking views on the various questions which arise over any scheme for intermittent custody. Decisions on legislation will naturally follow our consultations.
    Mr. Bowden: When my right hon. and learned Friend decides to go ahead with weekend sentencing, will he make it clear that the sentences will not be a soft option, that discipline will be very strict and that prisoners cannot expect to have any of the recreational facilities which they would normally have at home available to them in prison?
    Mr. Brittan: I shall have to see the response to a document which is yet to be published before we can decide whether to go ahead. The intention of any such sentence would be that it should be a credible alternative to imprisonment. It will not be a credible alternative unless the courts are satisfied that the purposes served by imprisonment would be served at least as well by intermittent custody.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Home Secretary accept that the prison service is already heavily overstretched at weekends and that it would be impossible for it to cope with the increased number of people who would undoubtedly be sent to prison if weekend imprisonment were introduced unless there were substantial increases in spending on the prison service?
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is for exactly that kind of reason that one of the points that will be raised in the consultations and discussions will be who will operate such a system of intermittent custody, where, with what regime and with what resources.

    Police (Effectiveness)
    Mr. Wattsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the effectiveness of the police.
    Mr. Brittan: Guidance has been issued to chief officers of police and police authorities about the need for effective and efficient use of resources. Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary have been asked to pay particular attention to the way resources are deployed and to ensure that examples of good practice are widely disseminated. My Department's contribution to improved effectiveness and efficiency includes the development of new technology, improved police training, the work of the crime prevention unit and research.
    Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the improved effectiveness of Slough police division, as shown by the 6 per cent. improvement in its detection rate last year, which has been achieved by maintaining regular contact at grass roots level with the public, not through bureaucractic and cumbersome machinery? Will he emphasise in any guidance that he issues on consultative procedure the value of grass roots liaison?
    Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity to commend any such achievements as those recorded by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree about the need for consultation. What we have stressed at all points is that there must be flexibility in the arrangements. We are not seeking to impose a blueprint. The more informal the arrangements, in accordance with the needs of a particular area, the better, although in some areas it may be necessary to have more elaborate machinery.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware of the considerable concern over the way in which all the papers

    367
    and diaries of Mr. Duncan Campbell were searched by the police after he had an accident on his bicycle? Is it not time that the Government recognised that we are living in a democratic country and that basic civil liberties should be respected, even by the Home Secretary and the authorities?
    Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of civil liberties. For that reason, the warrant under which Mr. Campbell's premises were searched was issued by the courts in response to an application under the law of the land.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most effective ways in which to increase police effectiveness in dealing with burglaries and vandalism is to ensure that there is close co-operation with the public in crime prevention measures? I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the initiatives that he has taken on this issue and ask him to do all that he can to ensure that he is given as much support as possible.
    Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. Crime prevention is assuming a new order of priority in attitudes towards policing, and measures have been taken to this end, both in setting up a unit in the Home Office and in issuing a circular calling on local authorities and others to take the lead, which is essential. I hope that this will lead to serious local crime prevention in accordance with the needs of the locality.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Home Secretary agree that the effectiveness of the police force in the London area and the south east of England is being considerably reduced by the need to guard prisoners in police and court cells? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to comment on his commitment that such prisoners would be cleared out of the cells by 1 January, a commitment that he lived up to for two or three days only, as by the end of January 145 prisoners were in such cells?
    Mr. Brittan: Had the hon. Gentleman bothered to read further he would have seen that I made it clear that although it was our policy that prisoners who were remanded to prison should not he kept in police cells, there would be difficulties in the earlier part of the year. None the less, there has been a substantial achievement and I commend the prison department for it. We have succeeded in ending the routine use of police cells for custody and have brought the numbers down from hundreds in regular use last year. I am certain that with the further accommodation that will be available later in the year we shall be able to deal with the outstanding problems and give effect to a real commitment and an important change.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had about civil defence regulations.
    Mr. Hurd: Representations on the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 were received from the local authority associations and the GLC, together with over 500 written representations from local authorities, Members of Parliament, trades unions, other organisations, and members of the public.
    Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us how many of those were in favour of the regulations and whether any
    368
    of the professional bodies whose members will have to carry out some of the regulations have sent in letters of support? Finally, will he tell us whether the Government are confident that people living in high rise flats, such as those in my constituency at Haughton Green and Brinnington, have any clear idea from the regulations and the advice that the Government are giving on civil defence what they should do in the face of a nuclear war?
    Mr. Hurd: We received a wide variety of advice, and we took some of it. We altered the regulations. Parliament passed the regulations, and we now intend that they should be carried out. At the same time, we are making available updated information to cover the precise matter that the hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only action taken by Derbyshire county council has been to set up a so-called nuclear-free zone? Are not my constituents in towns like Ilkeston and Long Eaton right to be concerned at this disgraceful dereliction of the responsibility of a local authority to prepare for even simple emergencies, nuclear or non-nuclear?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly people are not the least bit safer because they live in an area which the council has declared a nuclear-free zone. In the questionnaire which I have mentioned we shall be asking all local authorities, later in the spring, how they are getting on with carrying out Parliament's wishes. We shall have to decide how to proceed from there.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I come from the county of Nottinghamshire, that Nottinghamshire county council has declared the county a nuclear-free zone, and that I am proud of that decision? As the Government and the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues are telling local authorities to spend wisely, why are they inviting local authorities to spend money of this kind unwisely, when it should be spent on areas of real need?
    Mr. Hurd: Because planning and training in the use of existing resources, which is what civil defence is primarily about, could make a substantial difference to the chances of survival of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if these islands were again attacked.

    Immigration
    Mr. Lawlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for extension of visits were received at the immigration office at Lunar House from the West Yorkshire area in the latest 12 months for which figures are available.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I regret that the information requested is not routinely compiled.
    Mr. Lawler: In view of the high numbers of ethnic minorities in West Yorkshire and the great use that they make of Lunar House, will my hon. and learned Friend consider opening an immigration office, or an office dealing with immigration matters, in West Yorkshire—perhaps most appropriately in Bradford?
    Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will know that there are six regional public inquiry officers. However, the primary task of the immigration service is to interview

    369
    incoming passengers, so it is not surprising that most officers are at the ports. For that reason I am afraid that we have no plans to open a public inquiry office in West Yorkshire, but we shall bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind in our future planning.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that whenever visitors are refused entry or extensions to visits they are often caused great distress, inconvenience and expense? Will he tell the House the main criteria for accepting visitors and extensions to visits?
    Mr. Waddington: There is no difficulty about that. The criteria are laid down in the rules approved by Parliament. The duty is laid on the immigration officer to satisfy himself that the person is a bona fide visitor and that he will leave at the end of the stay for which he is seeking permission.

    Gatwick Airport (Magistrates' Court)
    Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider building a new magistrates' court at Gatwick airport.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Responsibility for the provision of magistrates' courthouse accommodation rests with the local authority; and my right hon. and learned Friend has had no capital expenditure proposals from West Sussex for such a project.
    Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pressures that are building up on the Crawley magistrates' court because of the weight of cases emanating from Gatwick airport? In view of the rapid expansion of Gatwick, will he consider building a courthouse at Gatwick airport so that these matters may be handled expeditiously?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend should approach the county council in the first instance. Our capital programme is spent up to the year 1986–87 on 27 new courthouse projects at a cost of about £100 million. If my hon. Friend's county council were to pursue an application under the minor works scheme to extend the existing court, that might be the most expeditious way in which to proceed.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the establishment for the Metropolitan police was last reviewed.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police.
    Mrs. Roeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
    Mr. Brittan: My last official meeting with the Commissioner was on 1 February when we discussed his recent report to me on his plans and priorities for 1984. As I stated in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on 8 February about that report, I have told the Commissioner that the Metropolitan police will be allowed an additional 200 police officers in 1984–85, which will bring its establishment up to 27,115. The civil staff ceiling will rise to 13,750, an increase of 294.
    Mr. Townsend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware just how thin is the blue line in outer London when there is a major event in inner London? Will he add up the additional commitments that have come the way of the Metropolitan police since their establishment was last reviewed? Is he aware of the strength of feeling on the Conservative Benches that we should now jolly well get on with it and increase that establishment?
    Mr. Brittan: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Police manpower in later years is being considered, but my hon. Friend will want to take account of the fact that an adequate standard of policing for public order events in London was maintained last year, with 27 per cent. fewer officers being taken from their normal duties than in the previous year.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate the Commissioner of Police on the excellent annual report, which shows a 4 per cent. decrease in notifiable offences and a 17 per cent. overall clear-up rate? When my right hon. and learned Friend next speaks to the Commissioner, will he consider discussing the civilianisation of more police officer posts and putting more police officers back on the beat?
    Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to be associated with the tribute that he has paid to the efforts of the police in London and the success that they have achieved in reducing crime and increasing the clear-up rate. I have told the Commissioner that the civilianisation of posts which do not require the special powers and training of a police officer should continue to have high priority.
    Mrs. Roe: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had discussions with the Commissioner about the undermining of the Metropolitan police by the activities of the police monitoring groups, of which there are now 15 or more operating in London, and which in the financial year 1983–84 were allocated £353,000 in grants by the Greater London council?
    Mr. Brittan: I hear my hon. Friend's reservations about the value of such expenditure, but I think that the Metropolitan police, the House, and the people of London are robust enough not to be put off support for the forces of law and order by such efforts.
    Mr. Frank Cook: When the Home Secretary last met the Commissioner, did he take the opportunity to ask him why, when officers of his force raided the premises of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in order, rightfully, to take custody of a document which had previously been reserved, they took custody of documents related to the deposition of radioactive waste in Billingham, Cleveland? If not, why not? Will he ask them to return those documents, because that informtion may be vital in enabling that community to launch its opposition to proposals at any public inquiry that may ensue?
    Mr. Brittan: To my certain knowledge, that community is pursuing that matter with great vigour. If there is any suggestion that actions taken were not in accordance with the law, that can be dealt with in the normal way.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Home Secretary aware that expeditions of that sort, and the one involving Mr. Duncan Campbell, give rise to great concern that the police are

    371
    going on general fishing expeditions in order to obtain information? Will he discuss that with the Metropolitan Commissioner and, after doing so, consider whether it is necessary to introduce further amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to ensure that such general fishing expeditions do not take place?
    Mr. Brittan: I very much doubt whether the question of amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will arise from these matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is nothing in that Bill that should lead to the view that the position that the hon. Gentleman is anxious about will be made in any way worse. However, I shall certainly consider his points.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Home Secretary know why the courts gave the police authority to rifle through the home and bicycle bag of Duncan Campbell?—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, rifle. If so, will he tell the House? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know who knocked Duncan Campbell off his bicycle?
    Mr. Brittan: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no. The answer to his first question is that I am not answerable for the actions of the courts. It would be a very dangerous step if the the House were to expect Ministers of the Crown to account for the actions of the courts, which are rightly independent. That independence is a bastion of our constitution.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the very welcome improvement in London's crime figures reflects in large measure the increased number of police officers on the beat, and that that in turn reflects the improved recruiting that has taken place due to the better pay arrangements made since the Edmund-Davies report? If so, will he at least give an assurance that the Edmund-Davies pay formula is not now at risk?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of some of the factors that have led to the improvement. However, I would add that the deployment and organisation of the police, under the leadership of the Commissioner, are also important. The system set up by Lord Edmund-Davies has continuing validity, and I welcome this opportunity of saying so.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Home Secretary aware that his answers about those police raids are totally unacceptable? The right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to shuffle off his responsibilities, but he is the police authority for the Metropolitan police. On what justification did the police seize those documents about dumping nuclear waste at Billingham, or photocopy the contact book of Mr. Duncan Campbell, and on what justification are they developing this dangerous tendency to go on fishing expeditions? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman inquire into those episodes and tell the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that this is England, not South Africa?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis needs any lessons from the right hon. Gentleman about what country we are in. The Commissioner has done the people of London a great service by reducing the level of crime. I have made it quite clear that the powers exercised by the police are challengeable in the courts if anyone suggests that they have been exceeded. The courts have the right to decide whether to grant warrants.

    Departmental Performance Review
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department what progress is being made in developing the system of annual performance reviews in his Department.
    Mr. Brittan: The second review has just taken place, and has proved its value as an aid to management at all levels.
    Mr. Thurnham: Why is the Home Office the only Department to be increasing the number of civil servants, when all the other Departments are reducing the number?
    Mr. Brittan: We are increasing the number largely because we are building prisons and recruiting people to man them. Outside the prison department, there will be a decrease in the number of staff in the Home Office of about 10 per cent. over eight years.

    Air Weapons
    Mr. Mark Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make an assessment of the results of the national campaign held in December 1983 to make people more aware of the law relating to the possession and use of air weapons and of the dangers of misuse.
    Mr. Waddington: It is too early to assess what effect the campaign has had but we shall evaluate it with the help of the police and others in the coming months.
    Mr. Robinson: In view of the threat posed to livestock by technological developments, such as increasingly sophisticated air weapons — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—will my hon. and learned Friend review the Fire Arms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] — with a view to broadening categories of air weapons declared to be especially dangerous?
    Mr. Waddington: The Home Office forensic science laboratory monitors technological developments in air weapon design. We are satisfied that there is no need at present to widen the category of specially dangerous air weapons in the 1969 rules, but we shall keep the matter under review.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that many parents are concerned about the possession of air weapons by teenagers? Does he agree that the law needs strengthening to prevent them obtaining possession of these weapons? Surely we should not encourage anyone to have guns, no matter how weak it is suggested the guns may be?
    Mr. Waddington: We would submit that the problem is less one of inadequate controls than of enforcing existing controls. The existing controls are more restrictive than is often supposed. A firearms certificate is required for the purchase of more powerful air weapons. Stringent restrictions on the purchase and use of these weapons are in force.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Dyfed-Powys police authority in Wales held a very successful teach-in last week for young people on air weapon control and handling? Will he examine the results of that teach-in and consider whether the same procedure should be adopted by all police authorities?
    Mr. Waddington: I shall do so.

    Television Licence
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future rate for the television licence.
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. The present levels of licence fee remain the basis of the BBC's income for the home services until April 1985. No consideration has been given to an increase.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that the BBC services, both radio and television, are the envy of the world and at roughly 12½p per day represent probably the best value in the land? That being so, how does he explain the remarks of the chairman of the Tory party a week or so ago when he said that "very serious action" would be taken against the BBC because it had dared to put on a programme criticising the Tory party? What exactly did the Tory party chairman mean when he said that? Was that wee whippersnapper speaking for Her Majesty's Government when he used those words?
    Mr. Hurd: As I understand it, serious criticisms were made of a particular programme. I understand that those criticisms are being considered seriously. That has nothing to do with the licence fee or with this question.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the rate of the licence but its scope that he should review? In particular, there are unfair anomalies whereby some old people in residential accommodation pay individual licence fees whereas others qualify for a group licence and pay only a few pence per week. Will my right hon. Friend agree to make a statement about the anomalies as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Hurd: There are anomalies and we have been conidering them. The difficulty is that if the existing concessions were removed that would be very harsh; if they were to be extended to satisfy everyone who felt entitled to have a concession, the remainder would have to pay a very high licence fee.

    Tamils (Repatriation)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that no Tamils are forcibly returned to Sri Lanka against their will for at least a period of 12 months after the last reported incident of sectarian violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Waddington: No, Sir. We shall continue to examine each case in which a Sri Lankan Tamil expresses a fear of returning to Sri Lanka, in accordance with our obligation under the 1951 United Nations convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees and in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and the situation in Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister tell the House how many Sri Lankan Tamils have been returned since the violence last summer? Does he agree that, whereas a minority of those who are here are fearful of returning for political reasons, the majority are fearful because of the violence against Tamils as Tamils? Will he assure the House that those who are merely fearful because they are Tamils will not be treated in any worse way than those with a political involvement?
    Mr. Waddington: I assure the hon. Gentleman that every case is considered with the greatest care. We observe scrupulously the United Nations convention on the treatment of refugees. In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, between 1 July and 31 December last year no fewer than 16,400 Sri Lankan nationals were admitted to the United Kingdom and 241 were refused leave to enter and removed. I should add that only 17 of those detained expressed a fear of being returned to Sri Lanka. Of these two left voluntarily and two have been removed or deported.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not a completely one-sided position? Was not the whole disastrous episode in Sri Lanka started by Tamil guerrillas slaughtering 12 of the Sri Lankan Government troops? Is it not time that those bridges were mended and that the President of Sri Lanka was given an invitation to visit the United Kingdom again?
    Mr. Waddington: I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is no time for us to debate these matters. It is my task to study the case of each person who is here and wishes to stay.

    Weapons and Crowd Control Devices
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the proportion of weapons and crowd control devices held by the police which are manufactured in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hurd: Records of the place of manufacture of such equipment are not held centrally.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very sophisticated crowd control weapon was produced by one of our royal ordnance factories, submitted through the Home Office to the Cabinet, and rejected for use in this country? Can he reconsider the matter to determine whether that weapon should be bought to avoid buying from abroad?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly look at the matter again. Obviously, our police services prefer to use competitive and reliable British weapons whenever possible. However, it is not always possible to do so.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young offenders, aged 15 to 16 years, discharged in 1980 were reconvicted within two years.
    Mr. Mellor: The most recent information available relates to young offenders discharged from detention centres and borstals in 1979. It shows a reconviction rate of about 72 per cent. for boys discharged from detention centres and of about 83 per cent. for boys discharged from borstals. The reconviction rate for girls was about 54 per cent.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister agree that those appalling figures show that the Government's policy of punishment through sharp shocks has been a wholly discredited failure? What new money, new initiatives, new ideas and new determination will the Government bring forward to improve education and training facilities for youngsters?
    Mr. Mellor: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary before he heard my answer. Since the dates to which the answer refers we have changed the system of borstal to young persons prisons. We have introduced a community service scheme for 16-year olds and we have made a number of changes to improve education facilities in prisons as a result of the prison building programme which this Government had the courage to introduce—unlike the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister explain how the short, sharp shock administered to many life prisoners—one of whom, on the day before the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative party conference, was moved from an open prison to a closed prison by Executive action—can be justified on any principle of justice, given that it is retrospective legislation by Executive act? It takes no account of the interests of many people who are due for parole and have been recommended for parole.
    Mr. Mellor: First, that question has nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper. Secondly, the release of life sentence prisoners has always been a matter for the discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is an easy task to discharge, he has not thought seriously about the problem.
    Thirdly, the announcement that my right hon. and learned Friend made about life sentence prisoners was a material part of the increasing confidence in the criminal justice system that has taken place under this Government in recent months.
    Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that I commend him on the recent announcement of the greater use of community service orders, which at least require those guilty of offences to pay something back to the community? Does not that system reduce the number of those taken into custody and to what has become a rather expensive finishing school for criminals?
    Mr. Mellor: We certainly wish to develop non-custodial alternatives where they are appropriate, but there are some young offenders who require, and will continue to receive, custodial sentences. We have to think not only of rehabilitation, but of containment, which is a problem when dealing with some young offenders.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Minister of State revert to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)? Is it not a fact that the magistrates are sending more young offenders to youth custody centres than they ever sent to borstal?
    Mr. Mellor: It is too early to say what sort of trend will be established, but at present the hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a greater use of youth custody than might have been anticipated.

    Voluntary Sector (Government Policy)
    Mr. Robert B. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Waddington: The Government's policy is to create the conditions in which a healthy and independent voluntary sector can work in an effective partnership with statutory services and private enterprise to meet
    376
    community needs. We especially value the contribution of volunteers, and the self-help and mutual aid that characterise so many voluntary groups.
    Mr. Jones: While I welcome what my hon. and learned Friend has said, may I ask him to make it clear, when meeting voluntary bodies, that the Government regard the voluntary sector as important, not just from the point of view of recipients, but from the point of view of work done by the volunteers themselves in promoting their own interest?
    Mr. Waddington: We shall certainly take every opportunity to make that clear.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet, and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with King Hussein of Jordan. This evening I shall be holding a reception for entrepreneurs at 10 Downing street.
    Mr. Robinson: Has the Prime Minister found time today to read the all-party unanimous report on the trade union situation at GCHQ? Does she agree that the reckless bungling of the matter by the Foreign Secretary has resulted only in enormous and unnecessary damage to the international standing of our security system, and to the individual integrity of employees? Does she further agree that the six-point programme put forward in the recommendations of the unanimous report represents a reasoned and constructive basis for an agreement to be reached? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".] For the Prime Minister in particular to show her readiness to accept that programme would be, not a sign of weakness, but of her commitment to a reasoned and constructive outcome to the dispute.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do ask for shorter supplementary questions. The Prime Minister is evidently suffering from a cold, and I hope that the House will have consideration for her today.
    The Prime Minister: I note that the Committee endorsed the Government's objectives, but took a different view of how to achieve them. The Committee is entitled to its view, but the Government remain convinced that their approach provides the only effective guarantee of meeting those objectives. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware,. intelligence agencies have been treated differently by successive Governments, and this is an intelligence agency.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I first sympathise with the Prime Minister over her throat difficulty, and promise privately to offer the name of a good lozenge which I have to be efficacious?
    On the vexed subject of GCHQ, the Civil Service unions have offered very firm guarantees against disruption, and they will be reaffirmed at the forthcoming meeting with the Prime Minister. In addition, the Select

    377
    Committee produced not only a constructive report, but a unanimous report. In the light of these developments, does the Prime Minister not now realise that failure to adopt a course such as the one suggested by the Select Committee would be to abandon fair play and common sense, and neglect the national interest?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not yet being televised.
    The Prime Minister: The Government will consider the Select Committee's report but remain convinced that the decisions announced on 25 January are the only effective guarantee of our objectives, which the Committee endorsed.
    Mr. Kinnock: Clearly, they are not the only effective guarantee. Does the Prime Minister think that anybody in the trade unions or any member of that Select Committee wanted, any less than herself, to safeguard properly the security of this country? Will the right hon. Lady realise for once that there are alternative courses of wisdom, that they can be secured by the process of democracy, and that they do not require to be made under the duress that she is now enforcing at GCHQ?
    The Prime Minister: The Committee endorsed the Government's objectives. It pointed out that the Government had to be satisfied that those objectives could be reached. I have yet to see anything which satisfies me —[Interruption.] —as the Head of the Government, and therefore responsible for the security services, that those objectives can be reached by any other method than that which the Government have laid out. I said that I would see the trade unions again, and I shall.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Does my right hon. Friend find it interesting that the GLC should just have announced a modest reduction in the rate precept, whereas last year, when not faced by abolition, it found it necessary to increase it by a factor of five times as much?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and I think that I draw the same conclusion as my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Owen: Why has the Prime Minister abandoned her previously expressed view that it is wrong in principle to have to opt out of paying a trade union levy?
    The Prime Minister: We have not. [Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman will find in our manifesto that we said, first, that we would try to reach agreement of a—
    Dr. Owen: What is the right hon. Lady's position?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking from a sedentary position, which is nothing unusual. If he will do us the honour of reading our manifesto, which won a rather considerable majority, he will find that we said we would try to reach voluntary agreement with the trade unions. My right hon. Friend has, he believes, reached such agreement with the TUC. If that agreement is effective, that will be an end to the matter. If, in practice, that agreement is not effective, we shall have to legislate.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there are contingency plans to meet Government, rather that trade union, inspired disruption that could result after 1 March if there is no agreement either on the basis of the Select Committee's report or her own plans?
    The Prime Minister: As one of the problems is the selective disruption that has occurred from 1979 to 1981 — and as everyone, I understand, is interested in ensuring security — I trust that there will be no disruption.
    Mr. Leighton; Will the Prime Minister accept that the considered report of the Employment Select Committee was proffered in a helpful and constructive manner to assist the resolution of the unhappy and unfortunate situation at Cheltenham, which is deteriorating daily? As the right hon. Lady is to have a further meeting with the unions, will she take this opportunity to deny suggestions in the press that she summarily dismissed the report out of hand?
    The Prime Minister: I have just answered a question by saying that the Government will consider the Select Committee's report. I have reason to believe that, when the Leader of the House rises, he might have some news for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Freudasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Freud: In the course of her day, will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, before the 1973 reorganisation of local government, full local elections were held in April and May of that year so that councillors who would be elected were knowledgable and understanding of their new responsibilities? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be full local elections before the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils in all the affected areas?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Malone: I welcome yesterday's announcement that the next round of North sea oil licences will include provision for up to 180 new fields. However, will my right hon. Friend concede that there is some concern, especially within the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, that auctioning 15 new fields will put smaller companies working in the North sea in a difficult position? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that that does not occur?
    The Prime Minister: Only a few of the available licences are being auctioned. The rest will be allocated in a different way. That seemed a fair way of proceeding, to get the best result for everyone.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Prime Minister find time to consider two urgent aspects of the impending privatisation of special steel? Does she consider it right that the British Steel Corporation should provide more than three quarters of the value of the Phoenix 2 company and then be allowed to hold no more than a minor part of the equity? Does the right hon. Lady share her Minister's disdain for the likelihood that significant customers of special steel, refusing to be dependent upon a single source, will divert their orders to overseas competitors? Does not the right hon. Lady feel that South Yorkshire has already suffered enough industrial devastation?
    The Prime Minister: The British Steel Corporation and those in Phoenix 2 will come to their own arrangements, which I hope will be satisfactory to all concerned and succeed in getting a better deal for special steel than either would have achieved separately.
    Mr. Howard: Does my right hon. Friend not consider it remarkable that, during the many exchanges across the Floor of the House since 25 January on the subject of GCHQ, not one right hon. or hon. Member from any Opposition party has uttered a word in condemnation of the industrial action that has disrupted activity, including that which took place between February and April 1979 when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) had direct ministerial responsibility for these matters? Does my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.
    The Prime Minister: It is true that GCHQ was specially targeted for disruption because those in the Civil Service unions who did so knew that disruption at GCHQ would be very damaging to the national interest. I should be grateful if right hon. and hon. Members would condemn that action, if only in retrospect.
    Mr. John Townendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townend: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the action of the European Parliament yesterday, which will make it much less likely that Britain's agreed budget refund will be paid by the end of March? If the refund is not paid on the due date, what action do the Government intend to take?
    The Prime Minister: We condemn the action taken yesterday by the European Parliament. We know that the regulations must be approved in time to get the refund at the end of the financial year. If the regulations are not approved soon, the refund cannot be paid and the matter will have to be raised at the March meeting of the European Council of Heads of Government, which would be a pity, as there are many other matters to be settled then.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Lady, in her busy day, take the opportunity to discuss with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the deteriorating situation in the Scottish coalfields? The right hon. Lady is a former shadow spokesman on energy matters, so she has some knowledge of these things. It is not just a question of the overtime ban. There should be a public inquiry into the maladministration and mismanagement of the National Coal Board in Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. The matter of the Scottish pits is for the National Coal Board and its management, not for me.
    Mr. Murphy: As the Government will soon have to make key decisions affecting the aerospace industry, will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the importance, not just of backing Britain, but of buying British?
    The Prime Minister: The decisions to which my hon. Friend refers will not be long delayed. It is the Government's policy to buy British, but only when British can stand up on price, quality and delivery.
    Mr. Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the infantile behaviour of Conservative Members during Prime Minister's Question Time, would you not be thoroughly entitled to extend that Question Time a little?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that these episodes are not confined to one side.
    Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may have the audacity to commend your judgment to the House, may I say that this week's circulated questions for Prime Minister's Question Time took a form that was obvious.
    Mr. Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I caught your words aright, your rejoinder to the infantile display by Conservative Members was to the effect that we were not yet televised. May I tell you that a well-known comedian has already made the crack that it would be a good thing to televise the House so that the public would know where we kept the sheep, given the character of the noises that emanate from this place? Can you explain why it is that Members of this honourable House are models of courtesy when they go through the door but thoroughly ill-behaved when they are in the Chamber?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that we should clear this matter up now, as we have important business ahead. As for televising the House, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and the House well know, in relation to what has happened today, that this is a matter for the House to decide.
    Mr. Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the antics of the public schoolboys on the Tory Benches—[Interruption.]—who have clearly not stopped yet, do you recall that in the last Parliament—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very busy day ahead and many hon. Members will be very disappointed if these points of order continue so that I cannot get so many hon. Members into the debate.
    Mr. Dixon: In the last Parliament when my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) held up a placard suggesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland should keep his hands off Strathclyde county council he was ordered out of the House for three days. What action do you intend to take about today's events?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in the hands of the House, but if hon. Members complain later that they cannot get into the debate it will be due to points of order of this kind.
    Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my question about the pending privatisation of special steel, the Prime Minister said that it was nothing to do with her.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a continuation of Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Mr. Hardy: It is a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Concerned with what?
    Mr. Hardy: The Prime Minister said that the matter had nothing to do with her. It is obvious and common knowledge in South Yorkshire—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking a further extension of Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Mr. Hardy rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I deprecate what has happened today and I hope that we shall not see it happen again. I am sorry, but I will not take further points of order on an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time.

Business of the House
3.35 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY — Motion to take note of European Community documents on the draft general budget for 1984. The relevant numbers will appear in the Official Report. Remaining stages of the Occupiers Liability Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Proceedings on the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day): Until about seven o'clock, a debate on the problems of young unemployed and afterwards a debate on the need for improved care of the elderly. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions on the Double Taxation Relief Orders relating to Sweden, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Falkland Islands, and on the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order.
THURSDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Proceedings on the Pensions Commutation Bill.
Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 27 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on GCHQ.
[Documents for debate on EC budget: 20 February 1984:

a. Preliminary draft general budget for 1984 — COM(83)180

b. Draft general budget for 1984

c. Letter of Amendment to the 1984 budget

d. Modifications and amendments by the European Parliament to the 1984 budget—10447/83, 10105/83

e. Decisions by the Council on modifications and amendments by the European Parliament to the 1984 budget

f. Financial compensation for the United Kingdom and Germany for 1983–11094/83

g. Annual report of the Court of Auditors for 1982O.J. C357

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

a. HC 78-i (1983–84) paragraph 15

b. HC 78-ii (1983–84) paragraph 7

c. HC 78-viii (1983–84) paragraph 8

d. HC 78-viii (1983–84) paragraph 8

e. HC 78-xiii (1983–4) paragraph 3

f. HC 78-xi (1983–84) paragraph 7

g. HC 78-xiv (1983–84) paragraph 3.]

Mr. Kinnock: Will the debate on GCHQ scheduled for Monday week be on the Adjournment of the House or on a motion tabled by the Government? The Leader of the House will understand that the choice of debate will make some difference to the response to it in the House.
In the light of serious unemployment in Wales, when does the Leader of the House plan to provide a day for the
384
customary debate on Welsh affairs? Finally, in view of the continuing public speculation, which has become even more frequent recently, will the Leader of the House say when we shall hear a statement on the future of the A320 airbus project?
Mr. Biffen: I am very happy for the form of the motion of the GCHQ debate to be considered through the usual channels. I should like to take the opportunity of saying clearly that the Select Committee report will be a feature of that debate.
I give an undertaking that we shall seek leave to have the Welsh day debate in the fairly near future. I realise that it is customary for it to be close to St. David's day. Finally, I have demonstrated in the past my anxiety that a statement should be made on the airbus as soon as practicable. I am afraid that I have not been able to arrange for it to be announced to the House, but I shall certainly keep the matter under consideration and report shortly.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's White Paper "Insolvency Law and Practice"—the Cork report —is awaited with eager anticipation? Will he tell the House whether it will appear next week, or at least by the end of the month, and will there be an opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot answer the question in the precise terms that my hon. Friend asks for. I hope that the White Paper will be published shortly; then we may consider having a debate in the light of reaction to it.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Although there is a great deal of pressure on the time of the House while so many Government Bills are in Committee, could we have a debate on the situation at Windscale, or Sellafield as it is now called, because we have several reports to debate and the implications for the Government's energy programme are very serious?
Mr. Biffen: I was conscious of the great pressure on the time of the House, but perhaps I am more aware of that than others by the nature of my task. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: As we are due to debate GCHQ, Cheltenham, on Monday next, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if we have a copper-bottomed deal from the unions, which I hope the Government will accept, we will then not have that debate but perhaps have a day off, or something?
Mr. Biffen: I shall consider my hon. Friend's generous alternatives.
Mr. Donald Coleman: The Leader of the House will have heard the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) to the Prime Minister about the steel industry in Yorkshire. Is he aware of the difficulties being experienced by the steel industry in the midlands? When will we have a debate on the steel industry? May I press him a little further on the nods and winks that we have seen regarding Welsh day? Why can he not be specific and tell us what day it will be?
Mr. Biffen: Because I do not know myself. When that day comes, the fortunes of the steel industry in Wales will be relevant. On the wider issue of the steel industry in the

385
entire United Kingdom, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend may have seen yesterday's questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the legislation in Scotland on solvent abuse. Is he aware that there is no such legislation in England and Wales? Is it not time that this distressing addictive habit was discussed in the House, and, most importantly, should we not discuss the possible research that could be conducted into solving the problem?
Mr. Biffen: I shall consider my hon. Friend's points, although I cannot hold out hope of parliamentary time next week.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Will there be a ministerial statement next week on the Government's long-awaited response to the British Textile Confederation's document entitled "Plan for Action"? Is it not high time that we had that response?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point, about what is clearly a major industry in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Edward du Cann: When does my right hon. Friend think we will be able to implement the resolutions of the House passed on 19 July last year relating to Members' allowances and other matters?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that a paper providing guidance on the necessary changes in the arrangements relating to the disbursement of Members' secretarial, research and office expenses will shortly be submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, for consideration. If it is approved, the Fees Office will arrange for its distribution to all hon. Members as soon as possible thereafter.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doone Valley): Since it is now becoming clear that, despite some potentially better offers, the Secretary of State for Scotland sold Stonefield Vehicles to Mr. Abdul Shamji, a friend of the Prime Minister, with catastrophic results, since Trafalgar House nearly got the same sort of sweetheart deal to take over Scott Lithgow, in view of the privatisation of forestry, out of which many rich people are doing well, and in view of Cementation Ltd. and other matters, is it not about time that we had a debate about the need to curb the use of public office for private gain?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is far too nice to be using such arguments. However, if he feels strongly about it, there are plenty of ways open to him to pursue the matter so that it can be raised on a private Member's initiative.
Mr. John Farr: My right hon. Friend said that at 7 o'clock next Thursday there would be opposed private business, but he did not disclose the nature of that private business. Has it been decided and, if so, can my right hon. Friend say what it is?
Mr. Biffen: I speak subject to correction, but I am 99 per cent. certain that it will be the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan), who obviously was not here at the
386
beginning of Question Time when the business was announced as the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Leader of the House turn again to the debate a week next Monday? Surely we shall not have an Adjournment debate about GCHQ. There has been a report from a Select Committee. There have been statements from No. 10 Downing street and from outside the House. The House must have a view, and I hope that there will be a vote a week next Monday.
Mr. Biffen: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. He will recollect that I said to the Leader of the Opposition that this is a matter for consideration through the usual channels.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that onshore, as opposed to offshore, exploitation of our oil and gas reserves raises a whole new set of questions about protection of the environment? Would he agree that this matter cries out for a thorough review by the Government of the protective measures built in by local authorities and the Department of the Environment and the ability of local authorities to analyse oil companies' figures? Does this matter not cry out for a special debate of its own, outside normal Energy and Environment debates?
Mr. Biffen: The best way I can help my hon. Friend is to refer his pertinent points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), will the Leader of the House give a commitment that the Government, despite the Prime Minister's comments this afternoon, will not make up their mind about GCHQ before the debate next Monday week? Is he aware that, if the Government are not prepared to budge on this matter, they will be flying in the face of the unprecedented moves by the unions to accommodate the Government's position, and the Government will be encouraging non-cooperation at GCHQ as the only means of achieving the goals of the trade unions?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am here primarily to answer questions about the timetable for the House during the next 10 or so days, and not to argue the contents of policy.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend find time to provide an early debate on compensation for British citizens expelled from Uganda in 1972 when, 12 years later, there is still no compensation from Uganda?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the effective concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to his point. I commend to my hon. Friend the possibility of having this matter further debated in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does not the Leader of the House believe that it is about time that the Prime Minister made a statement on the policy regarding hereditary peerages, which seems to have changed? Is he

387
aware that there is a scurrilous rumour that that is being done to pave the way for a future Earl of Finchley, once his fortune has been made?
Mr. Biffen: I know that the House has a keen sense of priority in how it allocates its time, so I do not believe that I shall incur too much wrath if I say that no debate on this matter is planned for next week.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary whether, when he has finished the consultation process on streamlining the cities, he will arrange for a White Paper summarising the views expressed and the Government's decisions on those views?
Mr. Biffen: I shall convey that request.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that Monday's motion on the EEC will include consideration of the annual report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 1982, as notified a week ago in the Official Report? When will the motion be tabled?
Mr. Biffen: Monday's debate will cover document OJC 357, the European Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1982. I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's other point and be in touch.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Having regard to the considerable success of the loan guarantee scheme, its importance to small business and the widespread view in the House, recorded in early-day motion 337, that it should be extended, will my right hon. Friend find time to debate this subject?
[That this House congratulates the Government on the success of the pilot Loan Guarantee Scheme, and welcomes the important contribution this has made to the financing of 12,231 new and expanding small businesses; calls on the Government to develop and make this successful scheme permanent, by abolishing the Government's three per cent. premium, and by extending the upper limit for loans from £75,000 to £250,000 so that medium sized businesses, too can have access to such loan capital for expansion.]
Mr. Biffen: No, but I commend the topic as a matter to alleviate the tedium that normally overtakes consideration of the Finance Bill in Committee.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity for a debate on the BBC in view of the recent hysterical vapourings of the chairman of his party?
Mr. Biffen: The measured remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who is the chairman of the Conservative party, do not bear that description and the incident does not deserve a debate.
Mr. John Gorst: If my right hon. Friend found that it would be helpful, would he consider finding time for a debate upon the ideal relationship between Ministers, Whips and Select Committee?
Mr. Biffen: I shall be delighted to engage my hon. Friend in the entire concept of ideal relationships.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Leader of the House aware of the answer to my
388
question of 9 February by the Minister for Social Security, which reveals that the housing benefit scheme's administration and development costs are about £74·5 million, when the original estimate was only£19 million? Bearing in mind the other incompetent actions that have come to light recently in that Department, will he make a statement on the future, if any, of the Minister?
Mr. Biffen: I am not aware of the parliamentary question to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I cannot hold out hope of an early debate on the matter, in view of the debate which has recently taken place on the scheme.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: When will the House be able to debate the important White Paper on the Representation of the People Act?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that such a debate will come in the reasonably near future. It is a measure of major constitutional significance and obviously of great importance to the House. Such a debate cannot be entertained for next week.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is a rather strange state of affairs that the Prime Minister has exchanged letters on the Cementation deal and has answered written questions on the matter but has never, throughout the whole episode, made a statement from the Dispatch Box to defend her position? Does he accept that it is important—bearing in mind that it has been leaked by the Foreign Office that during her consultations with the sultan she was advancing the cause of her son—that she should deal with the matter on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I repudiate the innuendo and imputation of the hon. Gentleman. Every time that a question has been put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister inside the House she has answered it. There has been correspondence with her outside the House and she has answered that, too.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend seen the written answer on scented erasers that appeared this morning in Hansard? Is he aware that there were about 1,000 admissions to hospital last year for throat blockage and that not one involved an eraser, whether scented or otherwise? Would it not be sensible for the Government to provide time on the Floor of the House or in Committee to discuss the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order 1984, which is causing immense hardship to runny firms throughout the country, many of which have been set up with the assistance of Government funds?
Mr. Biffen: I should like to be able to assist my hon. Friend, certainly in the context of consideration of the order in Committee.
Mr. Dick Douglas: As the Leader of the House was present when the Prime Minister answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the Scottish coalfield. will he try to get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to be rather more forthcoming, especially on Monday when he answers questions? A serious situation is prevailing and there is widespread belief in the Scottish coal industry that the management is adopting a vindictive and disruptive attitude, especially by not asking NACODS to give cover for safety and maintenance purposes? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to investigate the position in Scotland and to be prepared to give satisfactory answers in defence of public assets?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that energy questions will be taken next Monday. In anticipation of that Question Time, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: Bearing in mind the importance of the British pharmaceutical industry to the health of the nation in more ways than one, and especially to my constituency, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the situation that is facing it?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate in Government time. As my hon. Friend has said, the issue has a real constituency interest for him. I suggest that he might like to use private Members' time and to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What happened to the Leader of the House's sense of scepticism when he heard the answers given by the Home Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and myself about the circumstances in which the police rifled through the house and bicycle possessions of Mr. Duncan Campbell? Do not those bizarre and extraordinary events warrant some explanation? Are we to believe that out of thin air, for reasons unknown, the court suddenly took what was a strange action for a court to take? Was any member of the Government involved? Is it not time that someone found out who knocked Duncan Campbell off his bicycle? Are we sure that we do not know?
Mr. Biffen: It is not within my recollection that I was in the Chamber when the exchanges took place between the hon. Gentleman and my ministerial colleagues. However, I will draw their attention to his point.
Mr. Stuart Bell: There have been serious changes in the leadership of the Soviet Union in the past few days, and the Prime Minister has visited Moscow. Is it not time that we had a debate on the Floor of the House on foreign affairs, especially the prospects for detente throughout the world, and on events in the middle east?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has fairly identified a number of highly important topical matters, which necessitate the consideration of foreign affairs by the House. I cannot offer an immediate date, but I am sympathetically disposed to such an idea.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Could the right hon. Gentleman provide some time in which Parliament could debate the decision of the European Parliament this week to bring forward a draft treaty for European union, which is substantially supported by members of the Conservative party in Europe? The people of this country would then at least know, before the European elections in June, where the Government stand on European unity. They would not have to rely on the outpourings of Saatchi and Saatchi during the election period.
Mr. Biffen: Leaving Saatchi and Saatchi to one side, just for the moment, any sustained campaign to alert the public to the true nature of the debate about our relationship to the European Community will have to recognise that there is a close relationship between
390
constitutional and financial arrangements. Monday's discussion of the budget documents will provide a jolly good peg on which to hang the argument.
Mr. Greville Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the sixth and final recommendation in the report of the Select Committee on Employment on GCHQ, which states:
"That in the meantime"—
that is, until the Government have considered the recommendations of the Committee—
"all action consequent upon the certificates issued by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs should be suspended, together with the requirement to sign the option forms"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Might not that question be more relevant to the debate?
Mr. Janner: No, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I am asking whether, pending the debate, the Government accept the sixth recommendation, and whether they will therefore, in courtesy to the House and the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, take no action until the House has had a chance to debate the matter and the Government a chance to make up their mind—as they have promised to do—in the light of those unanimous recommendations?
Mr. Biffen: No, I cannot respond in any positive sense to that point, because the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to elicit from me a judgment on policy. I have made clear the occasion that there will be for a debate.
Mr. Frank Cook: I lend my support to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) in his plea for a debate on what he calls solvent abuse and I call glue-sniffing. If we do not have a debate and produce an effective measure against such abuse, there may be a recurrence of the conduct that we have seen on the Conservative Benches today.
Mr. Biffen: The subtlety of the hon. Gentleman's final words is too great for me. Perhaps I may say in a spirit of greater clarity that I understand the anxiety about this matter. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members are experiencing this problem at constituency level. I cannot go further than say that I am conscious of the anxiety.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Can I press the Leader of the House further about a debate on steel? Will he assure us that there will be a debate before the Phoenix 2 privatisation? Does he accept that that is now even more important as Ministers have been in consultation with, and closely involved in, the development of the scheme for the past three years? It is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to disclaim all responsibility. Can we have that debate, not merely because £500 million of public assets are involved but because many hundreds of jobs are at stake in south Yorkshire, which already has high levels of unemployment?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot go beyond what I have already said. I recognise the real constituency interest which the hon. Gentleman takes in this matter and his long personal involvement in the problems of the steel industry. I shall of course refer what he has said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that 17 questions, both oral and written, have been asked of the Prime Minister since 17

391
January about the Oman Cementation contract? Is he aware that in each of those answers it is clear from the selective and careful use of the English language that the Prime Minister is deliberately trying to avoid answering key questions? Is he aware that today there was a development when the Prime Minister answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, (Mr. Shore), the Shadow Leader of the House, by saying that she did not refer to Cementation during discussion with the Sultan? Is he aware that many of us do not believe that? Our evidence is to the contrary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Leader of the House a question.
Mr. Biffen: On behalf of many—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer first.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The answer please. I shall take the point of order later.
Mr. Biffen: I think that I speak for many right hon. and hon. Members when I say that we would be most interested to have placed on the record the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He has said that there have been 17 questions, the answers to which disappointed him. That is a case not of questions not being answered but of answers not meeting the expectation of the hon. Gentleman concerned.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may well have been that my question was long, but you did not rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, because it was long. The Leader of the House rose to intervene during my question. Therefore, may I be allowed to complete my question?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman was a rather latecomer to business questions today. I announced to the House earlier that there is a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that in normal circumstances I would not have called him. I did so out of kindness.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is your customary kindness to all right hon. and hon. Members. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of what I have said, would it not now be proper for the Leader of the House to go to the Prime Minister and ask her to make a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I think that that is not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day

  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we start on this extremely important debate, may I tell the House that no fewer than 22 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. I hope that it will be possible to call all of them if speeches are relatively brief.
  4.3 pm
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I apologise to the House in advance for what is necessarily a more than usually lengthy speech from me. I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I start by making the origins of the Bill clear. Its main provisions are contained in parts I to V and each of those parts arises from a separate report or consultative document. It is important to bear in mind that all of the measures in the first five parts of the Bill have been the subject of careful consideration before being put forward as provisional proposals, followed by wide consultation and further careful re-examination in the light of the response to the consultation. Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that this is the usual procedure of the English and Scottish Law Commissions. Parts I, II and III derive from English Law Commission reports, part IV from a Scottish Law Commission report and part V from a consultative document published by the Lord Chancellor's Department in January 1983 which followed the same procedure. The Bill as a whole, therefore, is the product of wide consultation followed by a great deal of further work to ensure that the measures which it is proposed to implement fairly reflect a consensus as to the changes needed to matrimonial law, are practicable and just.
  There has been a great deal of public interest in the Bill. It has been widely discussed in the press, on radio and on television but it would be misleading for me to represent it as a radical measure making further fundamental changes to divorce law. Its reforms are important, but are no more than a comparatively small bite at a much larger problem. The changes to be brought about by the Bill are, on the whole, changes of emphasis, not changes of major principle.
  Parts I and II make important changes to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which was a consolidation of two Acts— the Divorce Reform Act 1969 and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970. It was the 1969 Act which introduced a fundamental change in the law of divorce by replacing the fault-based grounds for divorce with the concept of divorce upon the proof of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The 1970 Act complemented it by conferring on the court a wide discretion to deal with financial and property matters on divorce. There have been one or two changes to the 1973 Act since then, but there has been no substantial review of that legislation since 1970.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Having mentioned several pieces of legislation, will the Atttorney-General explain why the Government have felt it necessary to introduce a Government Bill on a matter which has almost invariably been the subject of private Members' Bills?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will find that the number of smaller measures that have been introduced by private Members is roughly equal to the larger ones that have been introduced by the Government. I do not think that the House will complain if the Government give up their time to make what they believe are important changes in the law.
  It is not surprising that after 13 years of experience of the legislation it appears that some adjustments are needed. The purpose of the Bill is to make those adjustments which have been found necessary in the light of the careful work which has been done by the Law Commissions.
  Part I consists of reforms relating to the presentation of petitions of divorce and nullity. The objective of clause 1 is to avoid the harm caused by the present rule which prevents the presentation of a petition for divorce within the first three years of marriage unless the court gives leave on the ground of "exceptional depravity" on the part of the respondent or "exceptional hardship" suffered by the petitioner. This discretionary bar will be replaced by an absolute bar on the presentation of petitions for one year from the date of the marriage. It is, I think, common ground that the policy of the law of divorce should be to enable the hollow shell of a marriage which has irretrievably broken down to be dissolved with a minimum of distress, bitterness and humiliation. The changes incorporated in clause 1 emanate from recommendations made by the Law Commission in its report on time restrictions on the presentation of divorce and nullity petitions with that end in mind.
  There are two separate and distinct arguments about the proposed reforms to be made by clause 1: first, whether the present discretionary bar should be retained, and, secondly, if not, with what it should be replaced. The Law Commission had several criticisms of the present rule. In brief, it encourages the most wounding personal allegations made in support of the application for leave, which cause considerable bitterness, distress and humiliation, often to such an extent that the amicable resolution of later disputes about financial provision or the custody of children is affected. Furthermore, such allegations between parents can often be harmful to any children.
  It also appears that the distasteful process of applying for leave, coupled with an unpredictable outcome, is such that prospective petitioners are often advised against it even in extreme cases. Even those commentators on the Law Commission's working paper, which was issued some time before the final report, who preferred to see a longer bar coupled with a discretion, agreed that the "exceptional depravity" ground of exercise of that discretion should be abolished.
  The very use of the adjective "exceptional" in referring to depravity or hardship in itself implies that there is some "normal" standard of depravity and some "normal" standard of hardship which society considers acceptable. This is conceptual nonsense: what is "normal" and what is "exceptional" can only be entirely subjective and each
  394
  judge can only apply his own, subjective, view. The lack of common criteria creates a great difficulty which the judges are faced with in attempting to exercise their discretion. This leads to a divergence of judicial practice around the country. As Lord Justice Ormrod said in the case of C. v. C. reported in 1980,
  "the principal difficulty lies in knowing what standards to use in assessing exceptional hardship and what is meant by the phrase exceptional depravity. Both involve value judgments of an unusually subjective character … moreover, standards in society in these matters are not stable and are subject to considerable changes over comparatively short periods of time".
  The Law Commission found that advantage is not always taken of the permitted exceptions to the rule, and many petitioners are driven to duplicate proceedings by seeking judicial separation before, followed by divorce after, the three-year time bar. There is no time bar for judicial separation petitions. The effect, therefore, of the present rule tends to be to defer rather than to deter divorce and to duplicate the cost of legal aid — the cost for judicial separation and the cost for the subsequent divorce. It has proved unworkable in practice and can easily be circumvented by a legitimate procedural device. It is interesting to note that whereas in 1973 some 430 petitions for judicial separation were filed, in 1982—less than 10 years later—the number had risen to 7,480. Research shows that a very large number of these petitions were filed within the first three years of marriage. About 90 per cent. of them are filed by wives.
  Given that the present rule is unsatisfactory, the Law Commission recommended that it should be replaced with an absolute one-year bar. The choice of a period of one year is necessarily subjective, but it is an attempt to find a fair balance between respect for the institution of marriage and relief for the unfortunate people who make a mistake.
  A restriction for a long period can cause grave hardship in a case where the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The parties cannot be compelled to live together, but they can be prevented from remarrying. It really is an illusion, or perhaps a delusion, to believe that one can make a marriage endure when it has in fact broken down irretrievably by imposing a temporary bar on the commencement of proceedings. All that one is doing is encouraging extra-marital sex and imposing a penalty for having made a mistake in choice of partner or having simply been unlucky in that choice, and the penalty may be severe. For example, a wife deserted soon after marriage might wish to remarry and have children. Her only option at the moment is to live in the insecurity of an adulterous relationship and bear an illegitimate child.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, but why, then, have a period at all? Is that not merely doing what my right hon. and learned Friend is complaining about —compelling a falsehood?
  The Attorney-General: I would expect a Scotsman to support Scottish law. This is one of the points to which I am coming and will deal with it in a moment.
  It is suggested that it is beneficial to provide a period for reflection and reconciliation, but the practical effect of the bar would appear to be to encourage adultery. Numerous commentators on the working paper issued by the Law Commission favoured complete abolition of the restriction, as advocated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). Those

  395
  who advocate no time bar can advance the logical argument that if divorce may take place only on proof of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage there is no benefit to the individual or society from perpetuating the hollow shell of a marriage which has irretrievably broken down. This is, of course, the position in Scotland.
  The Scots have never had any restriction on the presentation of a petition for divorce. It is, in law, possible in Scotland to marry today and present a petition for divorce tomorrow. Indeed, that was the position in this country before 1937. If one were starting with a clean slate this might be the appropriate position to take, but we are not starting with a clean slate, and the Government accept the Law Commission's recommendations that a one-year absolute bar is appropriate because, on balance—and this must be a matter of judgment — some form of restriction is a valuable safeguard against irresponsible or trial marriage and a valuable external buttress to the stability of marriages during the difficult early time.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the evidence shows that there are more such irresponsible trial marriages in Scotland?
  The Attorney-General: No. It is interesting that the chart comparing divorce trends in Scotland and England shows that there is a similar period after marriage when divorce occurs.
  Mr. John Page: I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend before he gets into his run again. He seems to be saying that there is only one alternative to marriage—adultery. I thought that many people suffered in bedsitters in Earls Court without having to start a new relationship. That apart, will the Bill strengthen, or weaken, the marriage bond and family unit?
  The Attorney-General: All these people cannot be in bedsitters in Earls Court, bearing in mind the high figures of divorce. The Law Commission first and then the Government have tried to find a period of time which does not make it possible for people to say that they can get married today and divorced tomorrow, with no serious approach to the marriage, and also gets away from what is, in my experience of the Bar, the appalling business of seeking leave to apply within the three years.
  That was often a humiliating experience. Cases were sent to me and I would advise that the evidence was not enough and that the facts did not justify the case. Surprise, surprise, a month later back would come another proof from the intended petitioner which was much stronger and more likely to be successful. There was no doubt that there were occasions on which the evidence was grossly exaggerated to obtain a divorce where the husband felt that there was nothing to be gained by fighting the case, even though the allegations were not proved. That created an unsatisfactory position, particularly as the allegation would be widely known and might, in the end, become known to the children.
  It cannot he emphasised too strongly that the proposal is for an absolute bar on the presentation of a petition for divorce — it is not some form of new ground for divorce. There will continue to be only one ground for divorce, and that is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.The' parties will still have to prove that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by establishing
  396
  adultery, or unreasonable behaviour. In order to obtain a divorce "by consent" it will still be necessary for the parties to be separated for two years, and similarly it will be necessary to prove two years separation in cases of desertion.
  Mr. Tony Baldry (Bambury): As my right hon. and learned Friend is probably aware that whether or not one should reduce the period from three years to one, this is a matter of some concern to people's consciences. Would it be possible to have this matter debated separately on Report and to have a free vote on the issue?
  The Attorney-General: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. A free vote is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. However, this is an important Government Bill, and while the Government are conscious of the strength of feeling among hon. Members on both sides, my right hon. Friend has assured me that if any amendment to clause 1 is moved on Report which gives rise to a conscience issue, it will be the subject of a free vote if pressed to a Division on the Floor of the House. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Before my right hon. and learned' Friend leaves that matter, perhaps I might tell him that I am a little puzzled about how the Committee stage can proceed when it will riot know whether clause 1 will later be ditched. Will that riot make it rather difficult for the Committee?
  The Attorney-General: That is a risk which Committees often have to face. They may argue at great length about an important amendment, and then find that it is overturned on Report. I am sure that the debate on clause 1 in Committee will be of great value to the House if an amendment or amendments to cover the alternative options are moved on Report.
  Mr. John Morris: Would it not be better, in view of the interest in dealing with this matter, to table a motion to take the issue on the Floor of the House, in advance of it being considered in Committee?
  The Attorney-General:: The proposal that the Patronage Secretary has authorised me to put to the House is a perfectly fair one, and it will meet the demands of the House if the House wishes to consider the various alternatives.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am afraid that I am one of the few Members in the Chamber who is not a lawyer and therefore does not know quite as much about the matter as most hon. Members who are present. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there was to be an absolute bar on divorce in England for a period of less than a year. In extremis, will it be possible for an English couple to petition for a divorce in Scotland?
  The Attorney-General: I do not know the answer to that. There may be difficulties in getting jurisdiction in a Scottish court. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has made the point about using the Special Standing Committee procedure, which will allow the Committee to hear evidence. Perhaps that should precede any decision either by the House or the Committee on the various options that may be open as alternatives to clause 1.
  Mr. David Ashby: I am glad to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says about part I. Can he give a similar indication about part II?
  The Attorney-General: I would feel able to ask my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to consider it — again, if it were an issue of conscience, which is really the test that one has to apply on any other part of the Bill. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he, too, should perhaps approach the Patronage Secretary.
  Clause 2 deals with nullity petitions. It provides that where a petitioner fails to present a petition for nullity within the required three years from the date of the marriage on certain grounds which render a marriage voidable, if the petitioner has suffered mental disorder during that period a court should be able to grant leave to institute proceedings, provided that it considers that it would be just to do so in all the circumstances of the case. I do not imagine that the clause will meet opposition from any hon. Member.
  Part II, about which there has also been a great deal of discussion, interest and disagreement-save for clause 9 —implements a number of recommendations in the Law Commission's report on the financial consequences of divorce. That report was the result of a special reference to the Law Commission by the Lord Chancellor. Soon after his return to office in 1979 he found that he was receiving a steady stream of letters of complaint about the way in which the courts exercise their powers to make financial orders on divorce. Those letters have continued unabated. They can be put into two categories, broadly speaking. There are those from husbands and second wives complaining that the "system" has moved too far in favour of ex-wives, and, reversing the coin, there are those from ex-wives who complain that, having given the best years of their lives to their former husbands, they are cast off to live in penury without adequate support. The volume of each category, and the level of complaint, is more or less evenly balanced. It is worth noting, however, that few individual letters of complaint suggest that the courts fail to provide proper support for children where the husband has adequate means to do so.
  In view of the considerable concern which this aspect of the law has aroused, the Lord Chancellor referred the relevant provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to the Law Commission, and in October 1980 the Law Commission published a discussion paper entitled "The Financial Consequences of Divorce; The Basic Policy". This was widely discussed in the press and on the radio and television at the time. There was extensive correspondence in the press, and 468 individuals wrote to the Law Commission, which also received 45 memoranda from a wide range of interested organisations and persons. This very considerable response was carefully analysed, and the Law Commission was able to publish recommendations, based upon this response, about the policy which, in its view, the law should follow, in its report on the financial consequences of divorce.
  Chief among those recommendations were: first, that it is rarely possible to achieve the statutory objective in the 1973 Act of seeking to place the parties in the financial position in which they would have been if the marriage had not broken down and this requirement should be abolished; secondly, that financial support for the children should be given overriding priority; and thirdly, that
  398
  greater weight should be given to the importance of each party doing everything possible to become financially independent.
  In the majority of cases, particularly where the former husband remarries and acquires a new family, it is unrealistic to expect that the husband's wages will support two families at the same standard as they previously supported one. However, there is nothing in the Bill to undermine the principle that he should continue to contribute to the maintenance of his former family where it is practicable and just for him to do so. Indeed, giving first priority to the children is likely to encourage men to keep up their maintenance payments.
  Mr. Beith: Does the Attorney-General think that it is possible to separate the maintenance for the children of the first family from the maintenance of the wife? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is possible to separate those two considerations?
  The Attorney-General: With respect, that is exactly the point that the Law Commission made and the point that I am making now. I am sure that no hon. Member would disagree that priority must be given to the children. However, in considering the children, it is important that the wife should have adequate means to provide the right accommodation and surroundings for the children. That matter must be very much in the forefront of the court's mind when it decides the extent of the maintenance. Indeed, giving the first priority to children is likely to encourage men to keep up their maintenance payments.
  No reform of the private law of maintenance—it is important to remember that this is the private law—can provide more resources, and accordingly it would be wrong to make exaggerated claims about the likely effect of these reforms. It is perhaps a change of emphasis in the guidance given to the court when making financial provision orders, rather than a radical restructuring of the law relating to financial provision, which the Bill seeks to achieve.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Attorney-General saying that new section 25(2)(a) in clause 3 will or will not make any substantive change in the law? Will he tell us why, in that paragraph, the court is to have regard to the increase in earning capacity, but not to the decrease that a wife might suffer in her earning capacity as a result of her responsibilities to the children?
  The Attorney-General: The guidelines, which will become section 25, are to provide for all the usual situations which a court would have to consider. If there is a decrease, the wife can go back—
  Mr. Carlile: What about a clean break?
  The Attorney-General: I shall come to that in a moment. That is an unusual circumstance. I do not see it happening very often. If, as in the ordinary case, there has not been a clean break, the wife will be able to go back to court if her circumstances have changed. We have heard the example of a wife who, after working for 10 years, becomes ill. She may be away for some time, lose her job, or something of that sort. She would then be entitled to go back to the court. The clean break order is the one exception to which I shall come in a moment.
  Effect is given to the Law Commission's recommendations by clause 3. First, it requires the court, in considering any financial order, to give first consideration to the child.

  399
  At present, where child custody arises, the court must give first and paramount consideration to the child's welfare. That is not a requirement which applies to child maintenance, and the Bill will put that right. It will certainly make divorce more child-oriented, and the court could not comply with the requirement to give first consideration to the welfare of the child unless it also ensured that the person having care and control of the child was in as good a financial position to discharge that responsibility as the circumstances of the family allow. The court must have the child to the forefront of its mind when it considers financial provision between the parties.
  One of the amendments that has been latched on to in clause 3 deals with conduct. It has been argued that the provision in the new section 25(2)(g)—
  "the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it"—
  will cause a resurgence of the bitter fights which used to take place before the reforms of 1971 on the minutiae of ancient matrimonial grievances. I am sure that no hon. Member will ever want to see restored those appalling cruelty cases lasting for a week or a fortnight which were designed to achieve nothing more than to reduce the claim for maintenance that might follow the granting of a decree.
  I am confident that the Bill has got it right and that the apprehension that has been expressed is misplaced. Unless one takes the view, as I believe some do, that conduct is irrelevant to the question of financial provision, even where to ignore the conduct of a party would offend a reasonable person's sense of justice, conduct must be dealt with. It was included in the 1973 Act, but because it is embedded in a provision which is to be removed—a direction to the court to place the parties in the position in which they would have been had the marriages not broken down—it must be replaced elsewhere. The draftsman's advice, with which I agree, is that subsection (2)(g) gives precise effect to the Law Commission's recommendation that the status quo be preserved and that the courts should continue to rely on the prevailing authorities.
  Any gloss on the words,
  "that … it would be inequitable to disregard it"
  would alter the existing state of the law and inevitably would give rise to litigation on the effect of the gloss. As it stands, paragraph (g) will not enable the trivial incidents of broken marriages to be paraded before the courts. On the contrary, it will confine the need to have regard to the parties' conduct to those cases where to disregard it would be offensive to justice.
  The high water mark of excluding conduct was the case of Wachtel, where Mr. Justice Ormrod, as he then was, used the phrase "gross and obvious" and that was approved by Lord Denning and two other Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal. Since then the tide has receded a bit and the judges are approaching the question of conduct exactly in the way that it is set out in paragraph (g). I have discussed this with a senior Lord Justice who has a great deal of experience in the Family Division and he assures me that that is so. He took the view that the authorities did not regard conduct as being relevant unless one got to the position where it would be offensive to a reasonable person's sense of justice that such conduct should not be taken into account.
  Mr. Keith Best: One of the great criticisms of this part of the Bill is the belief that it elevates conduct to a higher status than that which it presently
  400
  enjoys. Is it not a fact that, whereas section 25 of the 1973 Act specifically enjoins a court to have regard to the conduct of the parties without qualificaion, other than when it is just so to do, the Bill places a limit on the regard which a court may have to the conduct of the parties, because the court can have regard to that conduct only if it is such that it would be inequitable not to?
  The Attorney-General: That is right. The 1973 Act, which was only a consolidating Act, provided that the court should have regard to the conduct of the parties. It was thought by the judges, particularly Lord Justice Ormrod, that when one was dealing only with irretrievable breakdown and no longer having blame as one of the considerations which the court should bear in mind, that there was some inconsistency when considering conduct as set out in the Act. It was then that the decision in Wachtel reached the high water mark as a result of judicial interpretation of words which were in no sense limited in legislation in 1973. Matters have settled down a bit since then with the interpretation in various recent decisions. The wording of paragraph (g) accurately represents the present state of the judicial approach to the application of conduct.
  Mr. Beith: Will not conduct become more important in the general context of the Bill because, for example, a woman foreseeing that there is no longer a general criterion on which she might rely when it comes to the financial settlement will be mere determined to ensure that the original divorce is fully contested and any allegations about conduct proved at that stage so that they can be relied on when the financial settlement comes about?
  The Attorney-General: The person seeking to establish conduct as a matter to be considered by the court will have to start by proving to the court—the burden will be upon him — that it would be inequitable to diregard it. Bearing in mind the many cases in which that has been under consideration since Wachtel in 1973, and bearing in mind also that the Bill does not alter what I consider to be the present judicial attitude when considering conduct, it would be a difficult task indeed to. get oneself within that exception unless it were a very strong case. I think that the judges will be reassured by Parliaments's decision on the way that they should approach conduct.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend concede that one of the problems of subsection (2)(g) is that it will lead to a large body of cases being called before the Court of Appeal so that it can decide what it is inequitable to disregard, and, as a consequence, registrars will be looking to the Court of Appeal for guidelines? Perhaps the subsection is too broad and non-specific for the requirements of the House.
  The Attorney-General: I should have more sympathy with that argument if the Bill were creating for the first time a test of when conduct should be considered by the court. As a result of discussions that I have had with those who implement the law in the Family Division—I have one or two close contacts with such people —I am satisfied that if this accurately represents, as I am assured it does, the present judicial approach, there will not be many appeals to the Court of Appeal. There were not many appeals about Wachtel v. Wachtel. The judges have watered down the description of "gross and obvious" a bit

  401
  since 1973. However, that case did not lead to many appeals to the Court of Appeal or to any complaints that I know of from the registrars and others implementing the law about any difficulty in deciding when conduct was applicable.
  Self-sufficiency is another problem that has exercised the mind of many people considering this issue. The Law Commission recognised in its report that there are a number of cases where divorced persons should be expected to become self-sufficient rather than remain dependent indefinitely upon the other party. But it is also recognised that the occasions on which it is possible for the parties to arrive at a final, once-and-for-all settlement will be comparatively few, and very rare where there are young children.
  Nevertheless, the response to the Law Commission's discussion paper showed strong support for the view that such finality should be achieved whenever possible, as, for example, where there is a childless marriage of comparatively short duration and the wife is earning, or has earning capacity. It may also be possible to achieve finality in the case of a longer marriage where there is an adequate measure of capital available for division. Provisions will encourage the courts, in appropriate cases, to sever financial ties between the parties, sometimes immediately, and sometimes after an interval. But I must stress that those particular provisions do not apply to financial orders where there are children.
  The flexible exercise of discretion has been criticised. It is essential that the 1973 Act, as amended by the Bill, should cater for all foreseeable circumstances. The discretion given to the courts must be flexible enough to allow them to deal fairly with the very rich—though a small minority—the ordinary family and the very poor. That flexibility is best achieved by continuing to give the courts a wide discretion. Clause 3 gives the courts necessary further guidance on how that discretion should be exercised.
  The only other clause in part II with which I want to deal is clause 7, which amends the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, to empower the court to order when it is considered just to do so, on divorce or judicial separation, that one spouse shall not be entitled to apply for financial provision under the 1975 Act on the death of the other spouse. That applies, of course, to the clean break case.
  The Bill also deals with domestic proceedings in magistrates courts. The last two clauses in part II amend provisions in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, revising the guidelines to the courts on the matters to be taken into account when considering an application for financial relief. The purpose is to ensure that the law on financial provision in domestic proceedings in magistrates courts remains in harmony with that in divorce proceedings. Clause 9 provides for a prospective payer as well as a payee to apply to the court for a consent order.
  Parts III and IV relate to overseas divorce. I doubt whether they will be in any way controversial. They implement respectively the recommendations of the English Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. Because of the differences between the legal systems in the two countries—I am looking for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross, but
  402
  he keeps moving around — parts III and IV differ considerably from each other. But the broad objective of each part is to empower the courts in England and Wales and Scotland to order financial relief in appropriate cases where a marriage has been terminated outside the British Isles.
  For example, where a marriage is terminated by foreign proceedings in which no financial order is made, or in which inadequate financial provision is made, a court in the United Kingdom has no power to grant financial relief. In recent years there has been a small but steady stream of cases coming before the courts which has both highlighted that gap in the law and illustrated the hardship to which it may give rise. I shall cite, by way of illustration, the case of an English woman who marries a wealthy Moslem in Iran but establishes the matrimonial home with him in England where they live together. The husband then returns to Iran and divorces his wife by "talaq". No financial order is made. Such a divorce may be recognised here, but despite the fact that the husband may own considerable property in this country, our courts have no power to order financial relief since a decree of divorce has not been granted by a court in England and Wales, or Scotland, as the case may be. The intention of parts III and IV is to remedy that injustice.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given us an example of an English woman who marries a wealthy Iranian. What would the situation be under the one-year rule if they had lived for a period of their married life in Scotland before going to Iran and her parents were Scottish, although she had previously been domiciled in England? Such a scenario is quite possible. What would the position be about whether they could apply for a divorce if that marriage unfortunately irretrievably broke down within a year?
  The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. Lady will allow me to give a little thought to that. With one exception, I doubt whether any hon. Member in the House could answer that question off the cuff.
  Mr. Fairbairn: In order to give my right hon. and learned Friend time to think, may I suggest that the answer is that those people could get a divorce in Scotland?
  The Attorney-General: Part V concerns family business in the sense of the business of the Family Division. It makes fresh provision to improve the distribution and transfer of family business between the High Court and county courts. Distribution of business and transfers of cases between the courts will be in accordance with directions to be made by the president of the Family Division with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. At present, as soon as a petition for divorce becomes defended, the case must be automatically transferred to the High Court. That rule will be abolished by the new provisions and, as a consequence, defended divorce cases will no longer be heard in the High Court as a matter of course. But they may be transferred there from the county courts, as with other cases, if they raise a particular difficulty. The provisions about transferability of cases are put forward following the response to a consultative paper on proposals for a Family Court published by the Lord Chancellor in January 1983. That paper contained two options for change. The more radical course would have

  403
  been to amalgamate the family jurisdictions of the High Court and county courts. The more modest option, which is to be implemented by the Bill, was to increase the degree of transferability between the county courts and the High Court. In the light of the response to the consultation, the more modest option was chosen.
  The provisions in part V represent a first, but important if undramatic, step towards a more rationalised approach to the distribution of family business, with the possibility of a more radical revision once these amendments have been made. It is right that the House should be reminded that the Lord Chancellor announced in the other place that, with the Home Secretary, he is putting in hand a reexamination of the concept of a family court, beginning with the study of several possible models with a view to assessing the financial and other divorce implications of each model.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a thorough and perfectly adequate review on this subject was carried out by the late Mr. Justice Finer and his commission, which reported as long ago as, I believe, July 1974? Why do we need to start once again from scratch when it comes to looking into the question of a family court?
  The Attorney-General: I entirely agree that the late Mr. Justice Finer provided a very detailed and helpful report. However, so many years later we must consider something that he did not consider, namely, the implications involved, and especially the resource implications. That inquiry will be conducted with the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. When that work is complete we shall be able to decide on the feasibility of establishing a family court, as such. Until that has been done, it would be wrong to attempt anything more radical at the moment.
  Ms. Harman: Is it not the case that the Law Commission has warned seriously against tinkering with the system on a piecemeal basis? Therefore, why is the legislation being brought before the House when we know from the Lord Chancellor that a major research project into the financial consequences of divorce is coming up, the results of which we do not yet know, and that there is another review of family law? Therefore, is the Bill not wholly premature, and is it not tinkering with the subject on a piecemeal basis?
  The Attorney-General: With respect, I do not call it tinkering. These are proposals that will improve the dispensing of family business. They will make it quicker and more convenient in a number of cases for the petitioners or the parties, particularly when they can stay in the county court rather than having to go to the High Court, which will be either in what used to be called an assize town perhaps some distance away or in London. I do not regard the Bill as tinkering in that sense.
  Part VI of the Bill I can deal with, I am glad to say, quite shortly. The only clause of substance is clause 41 which, by amending section 29A of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972, does for Northern Ireland what clauses 23 and 28 do for England and Wales and Scotland.
  Schedule 1 deals with a number of minor and consequential amendments. Some of the minor amendments are perhaps worth mentioning, such as that to the
  404
  Maintenance Orders Act 1950, which requires a person making maintenance payments through a magistrates court to notify the court of any change of address. This has been the cause of complaint after complaint where the wife who has an order in her favour finds that the husband has disappeared, she cannot trace him and then goes for a long period without payment. There is a criminal sanction for a husband who does not notify the court of his change of address.
  Another matter of complaint raised in the media and elsewhere is conciliation, or the lack of it. I shall deal with this because no doubt a number of right hon. and hon. Members would like like to have seen provisions in the Bill in respect of it. It is universally recognised that where the parties are amenable conciliation has a most important part to play. The Government firmly support the principle of conciliation, but there are issues to be resolved over the methods and funding of conciliation. The changes in procedure and practice which may be required are being examined by the committee on procedure in matrimonial causes under the chairmanship of a Family Division judge. Mrs. Justice Booth. She issued a substantial consultation paper last September. Over 1,500 copies of that paper have been sent to interested individuals and I am happy to say that there has been a heavy response, but it will be some months yet before the committee can be expected to report.
  In addition to that committee there is the report of the interdepartmental committee on conciliation which has been received and is still under consideration. The Lord Chancellor and the other Ministers concerned have not yet come to a decision on its recommendations. It is not yet possible to put proposals before the House, but I have this reassurance for hon. Members: since conciliation is a procedural and administrative matter, primary legislation is not required. The Bill, therefore, would not be the appropriate vehicle to deal with conciliation.
  Mr. Best: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way on a matter that is of considerable importance to the House. He will know that in the past a number of hon. Members on both sides have spoken on conciliation. I for one am prepared to accept that the Bill is not the right vehicle for conciliation because it is a procedural matter, and I am prepared to await the final conclusions of the committee under Mrs. Justice Booth, bearing in mind that she has already expressed a view that conciliation should be available at the initial hearing. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give us the assurance that there will be no delay in the establishment of pilot projects of conciliation so that there can be constant monitoring of conciliation by the Department? Then we could get to a situation where conciliation becomes an integral part of divorce matters as soon as possible, to the overall welfare of everyone concerned.
  The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I am unable to give that assurance off my own bat, but I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.
  The Bill contains a substantial package of measures which represent a carefully considered reform of matrimonial law, implementing the recommendations of no fewer than four Law Commission reports.
  The first two parts of the Bill are those on which views are likely to differ. Each requires a balance to be struck and it is a matter of judgment where that balance lies.

  405
  As I said, part I is intended to put an end to the exercise of a discretion based on notions of exceptional depravity and hardship, which the courts have found unworkable. The length of the absolute bar to petition with which it is proposed to replace that discretion has already been the subject of intense debate in another place and no doubt will be thoroughly debated in this House. Likewise, the revision in part II of the guidance which is given to the courts on making maintenance and other financial orders requires a balancing exercise.
  As the House knows, so that there can be informed debate upon this in Committee, it is the Government's intention—indeed, the order was made yesterday—to propose that the Special Standing Committee procedure should be invoked for the Bill. I am happy to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General who will be taking the Bill through Committee is one of the few Ministers in the House who has had first-hand experience of that procedure.
  Mr. John Stokes: My right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that those of us who are not lawyers find some parts of the Bill difficult to understand. Before he sits down, will he answer me on a most vital point of principle? Does he think that as a result of the Bill the institution of marriage will be strengthened or weakened?
  The Attorney-General: If people are not forced to the alternative of judicial separation to cover the time when they cannot live together, for example, until the period of three years is up, and if we get rid of the abomination, as I would call it, of having to apply for leave by establishing or seeking to establish exceptional depravity, which is hated by judges and by those counsel and solicitors who have had anything to do with it, it will be a more respectable and much cleaner operation. It is less likely to induce people to lie or take an alternative subterfuge. If that is the case, it can only do good to the proposition of the sanctity of marriage.
  The remaining three parts of substance are, I think, likely to prove generally acceptable as they stand. As I said, we have filled a lacuna in the courts' powers to deal with overseas marriages. The courts' power to make financial provision for spouses and children will not need to be invoked in a large number of cases.
  Part V makes a useful revision in the jurisdiction of divorce courts, and is not in my view tinkering with it. It may be a first modest but important step towards more fundamental changes. I cannot drop a heavier hint than that.
  I commend the Bill to the House and ask hon. Members to give it a favourable hearing.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. John Morris: Given the expectation that a third of today's marriages may end in divorce, for those of us who regard the family as one of the main pillars of society—I presume that most, if not all of us, do—there could not be many more important subjects before us than this. The whole House will be grateful to the Attorney-General for his careful explanations of the Bill.
  We are told that the essence of the Bill flows from the Law Commission's reports. That should dispose us to give it a fair wind where we can. It is introduced as a
  406
  Government Bill however, and the responsibility for what is in it, as drafted, must therefore lie on the shoulders of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends.
  I begin with what is not in the Bill. Traditionally, the Opposition—I know that this discipline is not limited—have always regarded divorce as a matter of conscience. It falls in the same category as abortion and the death penalty — matters of great social importance best resolved by individual decision. Hence, I shall not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do more than exercise their personal judgment on the Bill. I am fortified in that by the Government's response to our request for the Bill to go to a Special Standing Committee to examine its implications and to hear evidence.
  If ever there was a Bill—crossing as it does many strands of view, crossing party lines and resting so much on individual decision — suitable for that special procedure, this is it. It will provide the opportunity for those who are gravely concerned and anxious about some of its proposals to ventilate their views at first hand. I look forward with interest to the Committee's observations which will help us all in finalising our views.
  Having said that, while my later remarks about what is contained in the Bill will be personal remarks, made only in an effort to assist the House in weighing the Bill's provision, the remarks I make now about what is not in the Bill, but should have been in it, will, I hope, carry a broad measure of agreement, certainly on the Opposition Benches.
  The Bill is premature. A Bill that has as its title "Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill" should be sufficiently comprehensive to deal with—as opposed to paying lip service to in accompanying remarks — the vital and fundamental matters affecting the state of matrimony when it gets into troubled and difficult waters.
  First, I shall deal with family courts. Over the years, body after body has recommended their establishment. There is no greater clog in the way of change than existing institutions. It is frequently easy to change or adapt a principle, but try to change an institutional structure and one immediately comes up against all sorts of difficulties. The forces of reaction and self-interest leap into action to argue why it cannot be done, or at least not now.
  The Lord Chancellor—there is no higher authority—is a believer in family courts. He issued a consultation paper more than a year ago. Yet all that he now proposes —and it is a proposal on the margin—is for the easing of the transferability of matters between the High Court and the county court. The idea of family courts even antedates the Finer report — a report that successive Administrations have for far too long allowed to gather dust. It goes to the heart of family reform. Without it, the Bill is Hamlet without the Prince.
  Why dabble in the changes proposed, which, in turn, will be used by succeeding generations of bureaucrats as a fresh lever to delay fundamental reforms? Work of importance has been done by Judge Jean Graham Hall and others on costs. At one stage the Lord Chancellor, while saying that he gave the issue his support, also sought to say that, on the whole, the profession was against it, and was certainly not united in favour of it. He was soon corrected and reminded that the Law Society had been in favour of it for years.

  407
  The truth is that there is considerable support for bringing together the various jurisdictions dealing with the family from the High Court down to the magistrates courts.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I wish to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman something that forms a basis for the thinking of some of us on these matters. When he says that there is no higher authority on these matters than the Lord Chancellor, I expect that he is probably speaking in legal terms. Does he accept that many of us feel that Christian principles and the leadership of the church are the highest authority of all?
  Mr. Morris: I am confining my remarks to the authority and experience of the Lord Chancellor in regard to the administration of justice. If we are to delve into ecclesiastical matters, it is surely not for us to comment on what happened in another place. But we have noticed the way in which the Lord Chancellor dealt with the bishops. Perhaps there are better ways of debating than that, but I say no more.
  The change in the institutions would allow a different approach, and the activities of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the courts would not continue as though there was no connection between their respective roles. I believe, as others do, that the clauses proposed merely play with the problem.
  There is the absence of any provision in the Bill for proper conciliation machinery—a matter with which the Attorney-General dealt in his closing remarks. If we believe so much in the importance of the preservation of marriage, a fraction of the resources given to destroying marriages should be expended to try to preserve some of them. The state has to pick up so much of the Bill, not only for the costs of the divorce machine but — and much more important — the resulting costs of state maintenance. But, of course, state maintenance is not on the Lord Chancellor's Vote.
  The other great difficulty about our governmental procedures—and I speak with a little experience—and the influence of the Treasury in the allocation of resources is that so frequently in its opposition to proposals which cost money, it cannot see the bottom line of eventual savings. If only one family out of 100 could be saved from becoming state dependants, the cost of a properly funded conciliation service would be a good investment for the Treasury. That, of course, is taking a view right across Government as opposed to looking at it departmental Vote by departmental Vote.
  It is all very well for the Lord Chancellor to say—these words were repeated today by the Attorney-General —that no primary legislation is necessary. He may well be right, and I tend to agree that most of these matters, if not all, can be dealt with by changes in the rules of procedure. However, the Lord Chancellor's and the Attorney-General's defence would carry more conviction if their words were accompanied by a positive statement of intent to devote additional resources to conciliation. That is what it comes down to at the end of the day.
  The Bill also omits the lack of proper provision for children. I welcome the statement that children will come first in financial provision, but what does that mean—first in time, first in importance? Does it apply to maintenance, capital provision or accommodation? The Bill has been criticised because of an underlying
  408
  assumption that we can separate the maintenance of wives from that of children. Certainly, for capital provision that can be a useful assumption for children if the wife remarries.
  The startling omission of the Bill is the lack of proper provision for the children of one-parent families. Neither in this respect, nor in respect to a relation of the balance between the first wife and the second wife, can one get a quart out of a pint pot. It is the state that has to step in, and only a very small minority depend solely on maintenance.
  I appreciate that this is a wider matter than that of pure divorce legislation, but in our view there is a long way to go before the real poverty that exists in one-parent families is properly alleviated. The real answer to the financial problem of protecting the single parent would be either a non-means-tested one-parent family allowance of significant size, or a major increase in child benefit. The latter stands at no more in real terms now than it Ix as in 1979, yet because it is non-means-tested—I emphasise that— it is the best way out of the poverty trap that ensnares so many hundreds of such families today.
  It is a cause for wonderment that the Lord Chancellor can proceed to change the law of maintenance when so little research has been done. The Law Commission tells us that the
  "difficulty encountered in examining any proposal for law reform in this area is that … very little reliable information is available about the operation of the existing law … The lack of such factual information obviously constitutes a handicap to the task of law reform."
  We have to await the results of the valuable consultation paper referred to by the Attorney-General, issued by Mrs Justice Booth's committee.
  How much do we as a House, as opposed to personal experience, know of the cost of bringing up children? What levels of poverty exist? What guidelines will the courts have in deciding what is just and equitable? It is all very well to say, trust the judges, but the judges, be they the registrars, who do most of the work, or High Court judges, are entitled to some guidance, and that guidance should be based upon fact.
  The Law Commission proposed that
  "provision be made for continuous monitoring of the operation of any amending legislation dealing with the financial consequences of divorce."
  The precedent was section 105 of the Children Act 1975. The Lord Chancellor would have none of this. His, he said, was not a research Department. In typical Whitehall jargon, he had thought of something bigger and better. This—again I speak from a little experience—is an old Whitehall ploy where the best is deployed as the enemy of the good.
  Mr. Hind: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the quantifying of property and maintenance orders. Does he not accept, however, that there exists a well-established body of law, based upon the decision of Wachtel v. Wachtel, and the cases that followed it, that gives adequate guidance as to the criteria that should be followed by the courts in deciding and quantifying the maintenance and property division, that the Bill does not affect that situation, and that the law will be as good when the Bill is enacted as it is at present?
  Mr. Morris: I shall answer that in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the financial provision in toto I seek to argue that one is doing away with putting the

  409
  egg back into its shell, and is not replacing it with anything else. If the hon. Gentleman is dealing specifically with the issue of maintenance for children — he has perceived what I intended to say—one of the problems is that we have no idea of the average level of maintenance granted by the courts today. How can we say, therefore, that there is sufficient guidance when, as the Law Commission is saying generally — and as I am sure it would say specifically—we just do not know, no research having been done? In the case of Wachtel v. Wachtel to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I believe the court was dealing with wealthy parties. What is the aim of the courts when dealing with people who have limited wealth at their disposal? I shall return to that point, but I think that I have captured the point on which the hon. Gentleman seeks assistance.
  Given the lack of a positive response, I believe that it is time for us to make a real start. As I was saying, the real truth—the House has been told this specifically—is that we do not know the average amount of maintenance orders made. That is a tragic indictment of any reform. We hope to return to these matters in an attempt to improve the Bill at a later stage.
  I deal next with some of the main points of controversy arising from the Bill. There are, of course, widely different views on some of these issues, and I emphasise that I speak for myself in this context. The first is the minimum period for divorce, and an absolute bar for a year on commencing proceedings. I would be surprised if there were support for the retention of the status quo. Under the Divorce Reform Act 1969, as the House has been told, there is a discretionary bar on divorce within three years which can be lifted in cases of exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. The House has been reminded that the Scots have no such limitation, and I am not aware that the institution of marriage in Scotland suffers as a result.
  Mr. Fairbairn: It might interest the House to know that, suffering the bar that the English have at present, in Scotland fewer people are divorced within five years of marriage, and even fewer within three years of marriage, than are presently divorced in England.
  Mr. Morris: The House has heard the figures, and I would hope that hon. Members will learn and draw whatever lesson they can from them, but bare statistics can prove more than one thing. There is no limitation in Scotland, and the proposal before the House is no more than a compromise solution. I suspect that it satisfies hardly any hon. Gentleman. As the House was reminded by the Attorney-General, this proposal was first made in 1937 as part of the A. P. Herbert package when the grounds for divorce were extended to cover cruelty and desertion as opposed to adultery. That was part of the package in order to get the Bill through the House, if I recollect right, to show that Mr. A. P. Herbert wished not to undermine unduly the institution of marriage. This is a compromise solution. The House heard a little anecdotal evidence from the Attorney-General of the improvement of proofs of evidence when matters came before him in his past. When the parties were told that there was insufficient evidence to make an application within the three years, strange as it may seem, those facts were improved, sufficiently, I presume, for the Attorney-General to be
  410
  able to give a more positive guidance after more time had been given for thought. That is how I understand it today; if an application is made for a petition to be brought within three years, the chances are that, provided energy and ingenuity are shown, it will be granted.
  In any event, how can the courts distinguish between hardship and exceptional hardship or between depravity and exceptional depravity? As the Lord Chancellor said, contrary to what has been suggested, the Bill does not make divorce easier. The grounds remain the same. I suspect that all it does in practice is to make it impossible to have a divorce in less than one year, whereas now a court can, where cause is shown, grant it during that period.
  Ms. Harman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that just as the courts cannot distinguish between depravity and exceptional depravity or hardship and exceptional hardship — at least, it puts them in an invidious position to have to do so—the same situation exists when the courts are asked to take conduct or misconduct into account when assessing maintenance? Are we not asking the courts to make precisely those judgments in part II of the Bill that in part I we recognise they should not be asked to make?
  Mr. Morris: I should not have given way to my hon. Friend because I was beginning to deal with what is in the Bill. I shall come to the question of conduct in due course.
  I can see situations where one party has entered into marriage ignorant of the condition or intentions of the other in a fundamental respect. In those circumstances, should there be an absolute bar? Does delay in those circumstances strengthen the institution of marriage? On the other hand, there is the danger of marriages of convenience occurring in London and in our port areas, and that, too, is a matter that must be considered. I suspect that the House will want to ponder long and hard to get the right balance in this connection.
  I come to the impression created that, somehow or other, the Bill disadvantages women, and by "women" I mean particularly the divorced wife. It could also apply in the rare case of a divorced husband who is dependent on his wife. I suggest that those who have fears on this score should read the speech of Lord Scarman in another place. It is a clear explanation of what he understands—it is his understanding in his legislative capacity—the Bill to mean. Unhappily, in the world at large, few people will read his understanding and compassionate speech. Some of us may not share completely his high belief in the omniscience of judges. Even if we regard them highly, as I do, we may believe that it is for Parliament to decide the principles and give adequate guidelines, and that it is for the judges to interpret them at that stage.
  Therefore, so long as this anxiety remains—and it comes from a host of bodies—the burden lies on the promoters of the Bill to quell the fears. A change is proposed in the balance from the point of view of maintenance — in the extension of matters to be considered by the courts and the steps that they can take in the terms of what will be the new section 25—and I ask to what extent that will alter the situation in practice. Again, I feel that, had the changes been confined to childless women below middle age, or to some other suitable point, there would have been little fear. Lord Scarman is right to discount any risk to women who would

  411
  be "left in penury" after desertion—women unable, for one reason or another, to provide for their own support — and he sees no threat to middle-aged or elderly married women. However, somewhere in between there is a grey area of real fear.
  For many of my constituents the debate is largely academic. The one wage packet of my constituents—if they are lucky enough to be in work—will just not keep two families. It is to the state that the majority of my people will continue to look, with or without the Bill.
  Many of us have had at our constituency surgeries representations from both sides, from deserted wives whose standard of life has dropped disastrously and from husbands who have remarried and who find the claims of the second family not easy to satisfy at the same time as the claims of the first. We hear heart-rending tales on both sides.
  Two feelings have been engendered by the Bill. One is the hope of husbands that their situation will be changed dramatically by the measure. There will be a change for some but, I suspect, for very few. The second is the fear of divorced wives that they will inevitably be a lot worse off. Again, for the majority, if not the overwhelming majority, there will be little change, unless our judges interpret the words "what is just and equitable" in a manner wholly out of character for the British judiciary.
  However, so long as these fears remain, it is for the promoters of the Bill to dispose of them; and judging from the representations that I have received, the fears are widespread. I hope that the Government will say that they will consider amendments to allay some of these fears, and that amendments to give clearer guidelines to the courts will also be carefully considered.
  The available research tells us that only in a small proportion of cases where there are no children is maintenance the sole resource of the divorced wife after a few years. There must be some cases, if only a very few, where it would be just, in the interests of both parties, to have a clean break. There is a strong argument for saying that the courts should take into account the earning capacity of the wife and, in the same way, the actions of a husband who goes on supplementary benefit to avoid paying maintenance.
  I do not dissent from an approach which gives greater discretion to the courts, provided that the guidelines are seen to be just and clear; provided that the disadvantages to a woman who has been married and broken her career to provide a home are properly recognised; and provided that the need to allow for her retraining, her health and her age are properly recognised. It is a pity that amendments along those lines in another place were not accepted. Such amendments would go a considerable way towards allaying the fears that exist.
  These are essentially matters of personal judgment and my remarks are made against a background that the Bill will do away with the duty of the courts to try to put the parties back into the state in which they were financially before the break-up. That would, in most cases, be an impossible task. What is not clear — this is the fundamental flaw in the Bill—is what is to replace it. The courts will have to consider the whole series of matters set out in section 25, as amended, but with what aim in mind? The Committee on the Bill may also wish to consider the 1981 report of the Scottish Law Commission setting out detailed aims for the courts.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under the present law in England a spouse—I make no distinction between husband and wife—can benefit from the other spouse's income long after divorce to an extent that he or she never enjoyed during the period of the marriage?
  Mr. Morris: As it is a long time since I had to deal with matters of this kind, I prefer to reserve my position.
  Mr. Fairbairn: And criticise the Bill.
  Mr. Morris: I understand that the courts now have a wide discretion, but we do not know how that discretion will be replaced and what will be the aim of the courts when the impossible task of trying to put the egg back into the shell has been abandoned. That is my quarrel with the Bill. It does not say what will replace the present system or what will be the future aim of the courts.
  Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morris: No, I have given way several times and I must get on.
  There is also anxiety about the conduct of the parties being brought into the financial considerations if it would be inequitable to disregard it. No one with any experience in the long-distant past of pleading cruelty allegations in divorce petitions would wish to go back to litigating fault. We are grateful for the explanation given by the Attorney-General and I understand how the courts have interpreted the 1969 Act as confining consideration of conduct to the gross and obvious. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the views of a senior Court of Appeal judge who deals with these matters and whose judicial view is that the clause as sought to be amended would reflect the present position of the courts, but the judicial view on this is not unanimous. Those who have read the views expressed by Lord Denning in another place will not be fortified by the quoting of one judge when another judge, who has played a leading role in the reform of divorce law by the courts. dissents from the idea of putting the clause as amended in the form now proposed.
  In another place attempts were made to amend the Bill so that the court would consider only such exceptional cases as would render it inequitable for conduct to be disregarded. Lord Denning said that that was the intention of the judgment that he handed down but which he believed had been misinterpreted by the courts. He was unhappy about the provisions of the Bill in relation to the burden of proof because they might open the door to the kind of investigations that we used to have.
  I am fortified not just by Lord Denning's view, but by that of the Law Society, which is also very concerned about this matter. It states:
  "The Council's view is that the new wording is such that it might become the professional duty of solicitors to investigate fully and canvass all questions of conduct on financial applications."
  That may be putting it a little high, but the danger is certainly there. I hope that the Attorney-General's Treasury advisers will also take cognisance of that view because if solicitors are to have a professional obligation to investigate such matters the legal aid bill will go up, not down. The Law Society has forewarned us of that danger.
  The Attorney-General also quoted the Law Commission, which has commented that only exceptional circumstances should be considered and that such a

  413
  provision should be inserted as a preface. I regret to say that the Lord Chancellor quoted the Law Commission selectively in another place. The Law Commission made it clear in its report that it regarded that specific provision as necessary. The difficulty remains and the House should examine this proposal most carefully.
  I think that I have dealt with most of the matters that give rise to concern either because they are included in the Bill or because they are omitted from it. A good deal of what I have said is a matter of personal judgment, but I hope that in the further proceedings on the Bill some of the genuine fears that I have expressed will be put to rest. I very much welcome the Government's agreement to the Bill being considered in the Special Standing Committee. I trust that when it eventually returns to the Floor of the House some of our amendments dealing with omissions will have been accepted and we shall be able to take a more definitive view of the merits of the Bill as a whole.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I listened with great interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Like him, I believe that most of the hopes and fears that have been aroused—not so much by the Bill as by the various pressure groups banging about on it—will turn out to be misplaced. The Bill appears to contain a great deal of new law in its 43 pages but I believe that the number of people directly affected will be fairly limited.
  I have had the good fortune to be most happily married since my remarriage in 1980, but I must declare an interest in the Bill, as I may be among the small minority directly affected by it. I still have to pay maintenance in respect of a relatively short former marriage. That marriage took place a long time ago, there are no surviving children and my ex-wife earns her living as a barrister. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will not feel that that should prevent me from speaking on the Bill, as it involves a wide range of other circumstances which affect many of my constitutents.
  An old age pensioner in Twickenham got in touch with me because he had recently reached the age of 65. For 20 years he had been paying maintenance, fixed at £3 per week in 1962, to a former wife who must have had some other source of income, as no one could begin to live on £3 per week. He had been married to his second wife for 12 years and on ceasing to earn, he wished to end the maintenance payments to his former wife. The court reduced the amount to a nominal 5p per year but under the present law it did not have the power permanently to terminate the maintenance order.
  Ms Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the former husband's circumstances change he can ask for the maintenance order to be varied and that if the former wife consistently reapplies when there has been no change in her circumstances or his she can be ruled out as a vexatious litigant?
  Mr. Jessel: The hon. Lady is not quite right about that. The ex-wife can apply for the maintenance to be varied, as can the ex-husband, but once a maintenance order has been in existence for some years the court has power to reduce the maintenance to a nominal 5p per year but no less. There is thus always the threat hanging over the
  414
  former husband that his ex-wife may reapply for an upward variation. That is wrong and I profoundly believe that it should be altered.
  My constituent wishes to move with his present wife from his fairly small house to an even smaller one so that the relatively small difference in value can be used to augment their standard of living in his retirement, using either the capital value of the difference or any interest on it. He dare not do that because, in doing so, he would increase his income, which would then become vulnerable to a future application by his first wife for an increase in maintenance. That is wrong, and the Bill would put it right.
  All hon. Members will regard the needs of children as being absolutely paramount, and the Bill does that. In what will be new section 25(1) it says:
  "It shall be the duty of the court … to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not attained the age of eighteen."
  That is absolutely clear, and it is right that it should be given top priority.
  The trauma of a divorce for a child can be so serious that one wants to ensure that at least financial provision for the child comes first. However, in many divorces no children are involved. In three divorces out of 10 there are no children under the age of 18; in four out of 10 there are no children under the age of 16; and in five out of 10 there are no children under the age of 13. Therefore, broadly speaking, when divorces take place, then within five years, there are no children in half of them. That must be taken into account when maintenance for the family is considered. In about one third of divorces there are no children under the age of 18.
  It must be made clear — the majority of hon. Members will support this overwhelmingly — that the court must continue to be able to protect a wife who has devoted many years to the care of her family, as a good wife and mother, and who could not easily acquire new working skills, get a job or start a new profession in her 40s or 50s. The Bill provides for that, because what will be new section 25(2)(a), refers to
  "the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties of the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire."
  If a woman in that position cannot reasonably be expected to take steps to acquire that earning capacity, she would be protected under the Bill.
  Subsection (2)(d) states that
  "the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage"
  shall be taken into account. In particular, in respect of wives who have been caring for children, it provides that
  "the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family"
  shall be taken into account by the courts. Therefore, that part of the Bill appears to look after that aspect which, rightly, worries the public and hon. Members.
  I deal now with how part II may relate to the aim of strengthening marriage and family life, in so far as it interacts with the difficult question of conduct. If conduct is broadly to be excluded from consideration by the courts, except in exceptional circumstances, we shall not strengthen marriage. If conduct is excluded from

  415
  consideration, the wife who deserts will receive as much maintenance as a wife who is deserted. I am aware that there are strong arguments against discussing conduct in gory detail in court. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) referred to that. Hon. Members must realise that if they do not take conduct into account, they may not be doing what they can to strengthen family life in this part of the Bill. Whatever is in the statute will have comparatively little influence on the law and the courts.
  The 1973 Act, which consolidated what was in an earlier Act, clearly and categorically stated that the courts were to "have regard to conduct". Yet the judgment in the Wachtel case had the effect of the courts thereafter taking conduct into account only in exceptional circumstances. It has been said that that was a "development" or "interpretation" of the law, but that is a ministerial euphemism. It suggests that it is a variation on a theme—if a musical analogy may be allowed—of what is in the statute. That is not so, because the statute clearly states that the courts were to "have regard to conduct". However, the Court of Appeal virtually went in the opposite direction, thereby driving a coach and horses through that provision of the Act. The same thing could happen again. Even if Parliament were to decide that conduct should be taken into account, the courts could decide that that was not to happen. One has been taught that statute law must always be paramount over case law.
  Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman says that we must continue to have consideration of conduct to preserve the moral institution of marriage. Does he believe that parties to a marriage try to behave because they are worried that at a future date, if the marriage breaks down, they will be financially penalised if they do not?
  Mr. Jessel: The hon. Lady cannot have heard what I said. The House is faced with a choice between giving importance to conduct and complying with what the Court of Appeal has said. The House cannot have it both ways. It must choose.
  No reference has been made during the debate to the interests of second wives. The Lord Chancellor in another place has said that many second marriages become established, successful and certain, and often last much longer than first marriages. Yet the courts can discuss cases of maintenance, which sometimes come up years later, as if the parties are primarily the husband and wife of the first marriage only. The wife of a second marriage is often placed in a disadvantageous financial position, because her household may have to subsidise maintenance to the wife of a first short marriage, which may have ended many years previously without dependants.
  I shall vote for the Bill because I support part II and because to do so leaves open the position in part I. I hope that hon. Members will not overlook part III. Although it is said to be less controversial than parts I and II, it affects a growing number of people because of the increasing tendency of people to travel, marry foreigners and have spouses in another country. If, unfortunately, such an international marriage goes on the rocks and there are assets in this country, the wife, if it is a long marriage, should be able to make a claim on any resources in this country.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Leo Abse: I hope that the precedent set by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) need not be followed by all hon. Members, or we shall all have to declare our marital status. I must confess that I lack the clinical experience which the hon. Gentleman declared, and I admit that I have been married for 28 years. that I have had only one wife —I am too old now to have another—that I quarrel with my wife every week, and that of course we have a sweet reconciliation the following week. I can share the hon. Gentleman's experiences only vicariously, but in view of my long involvement with divorce law reform since I have been a Member of the House, perhaps I can synoptically, as did the Attorney-General, give a history of the events that led to the present position.
  In the Attorney-General's account there were many lacunas. From the account generously distributed to hon. Members by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Richardson), I was interested to see that she, too, puts a gloss upon history that does not accord with reality. Although I agree with my hon. Friend on many occasions, I neither agree with her recall of events, nor with her general thrust. However, I have no doubt that, as ever, she will speak vigorously for herself, as I am speaking only for myself, in a debate in which the Opposition have, in accordance with tradition, a free vote.
  When my colleague and friend Alec Jones and I finally put on the statute book the Divorce Reform Act 1969, that came about only after a long struggle throughout the 1960s, including my Matrimonial Causes and Reconciliation Act 1963 and other efforts, such as that of Mr. Bill Wilson. However, we had to pay a price for the 1969 Act, just as A. P. Herbert had to pay a price for his Marriage Act 1937. In order to take the House with us, we had to concede provisions relating to finance and conduct which were either inappropriate or which had a built-in obsolescence. It was a hard task to move the House away from the doctrine of the matrimonial offence to the doctrine of marriage breakdown. When we did that, alarm and concern was aroused among wives, who felt that laws were being enacted that might leave them lonely and frightened. Since, for the first time, it would be possible to divorce a wife without her consent even though the marriage might have broken down many years before, it was necessary to include in the Bill the provision with which we are dealing today: it was urged that there had to be a guiding rule to the courts making it clear that their goal should be that the parties to a divorce should be returned to the same financial position as they would have been in had there been no divorce. It was impractical, but it was insisted upon by vociferous lobbies in the 1960s.
  Of course, because it was impractical and often inappropriate, many injustices resulted. I knew that there would be such an accumulation of grievances and that in the long run there would have to be changes, but those of us who have been Members of the House for a long time know that in all such matters there is a question of timing. It was not until 1979 that I believed the time had come. I received many hundreds, indeed thousands, of letters during the previous decade that blamed me for having created the injustices which those people believed they were enduring. I then initiated an Adjournment debate, with the assistance of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), in which we put forward the view

  417
  that it was high time to have a review of the law, and we requested that the Law Commission should review existing provisions.
  When I hear, as I do from misinformed Opposition Members, that this Bill is a Conservative one, I regard that with some irony. It was also ironic to hear the Lord Chancellor in another place vociferously defending the Bill, because after that Adjournment debate, and after I had put pressure on him to conduct a review of the law, he wrote to me in October 1979 saying:
  "So far as ancillary relief is concerned, I do not believe that the time is ripe for a further review of the law governing maintenance and the adjustment of property rights following divorce, or that there are any changes in the substantive law which would improve the often difficult financial problems which arise from the hard fact that there is usually insufficient money to support two households comfortably."
  The Lord Chancellor dug in, and I felt the need for reinforcements. Following that, an all-party group was formed, including Conservative Members and Joan Lestor, Phillip Whitehead, David Stoddart and others who are no longer Members of the House. That group sent deputation after deputation to the Lord Chancellor to demand that the injustices should be reviewed. Let no one be under the misapprehension that this is a party Bill. It has been levered out of the Government as a result of considerable pressure.
  The Lord Chancellor—who is not a man to stay over-long in a crumbling intellectual dug—out-referred the matter to the Law Commission. The commission brought in a report that pussy-footed on the whole issue. Perhaps it did so because it believed that, with such a sensitive matter, it would be indelicate to try to impose a view on the House. Perhaps it believed that it could clear the ground and sow the options but that, until it had further instructions, it could go no further. Following that, 230 hon. Members from both sides of the House signed a motion making it clear to the Law Commissioners and to the Lord Chancellor that they wanted a definitive reply. Ultimately, the Law Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, put forward a report which is being implemented in part II.
  This is a limited Bill. It deals with a private law of maintenance. Perforce, by its nature, it cannot deal with the overwhelming majority of one-parent family problems, and I regret that it cannot do so. Successive Governments have moved away from the definitive report presented by my dear friend, Mr. Justice Finer, who died so prematurely. The report put forward the view that there should be a guaranteed minimum maintenance payment for all. As has rightly been said, dust has gathered upon that remarkable report.
  It is true that the omissions, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) categorised, are much in our minds when we deal with the Bill's restrictiveness. We must do what we can. The Bill is not dealing just with the problems of marriage breakdown in middle-class families. It impinges even in its financial provisions on, for example, skilled workmen whose marriages have suffered. In 40 per cent. of divorces, there are no dependent children, and in 29 per cent. of divorces, there are no children. A high proportion of divorces occur among childless people.
  We cannot condone the position in which a man, whose short marriage breaks down, who remarries and has
  418
  children is, in the years when those children are growing up, under pressure to make payments to his young first wife who had no children by him. In the 11 per cent. of cases in which the children are grown up and where the woman married when young, the divorced woman could be still in her thirties. Her former husband might have a second family. Yet, as the law stands, that woman would have a right of recourse to the court for maintenance until her first husband dies, and the right to pursue the estate. That right would be checked if the Bill were passed. It is intolerable to allow the existing state of affairs to continue.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Am I right in saying that not only is the injustice by which the woman can pursue that right, which the hon. has outlined, clearly part of the present law in England and Wales, but she can pursue a claim against her ex-husband far in excess of anything she enjoyed when married to him?
  Mr. Abse: That is so. The hon. and learned Gentleman is only emphasising, my point. The Bill insists, however, even in those cases in which the children have grown up, that the duration of a marriage and the contribution made by the woman in looking after and caring for the first family must be taken into account. There are safeguards for elderly mothers. The Bill would leave the courts, however, with the freedom to escape from the stranglehold in which a woman, still in her thirties, with a grown-up child earning an income, would have a continued right to pursue her claim for maintenance.
  Mr. Beith: How can the hon. Gentleman challenge that a woman aged 38, who had spent 18 years bringing up children—when she probably had to settle the place of her home in relation to her husband's job rather then hers — has a right to go to the courts to seek some maintenance from a previous husband and should, to some extent, share in any subsequent increase of income of that husband, given that the period when she made sacrifices was when she was married to him? How can we seek to expunge that right?
  Mr. Abse: That is what the Bill safeguards. I sought to stress that the Bill makes it clear that the duration of the marriage and the contribution made by the woman in looking after and caring for her family are the issue that the courts are commanded to take into account.
  Is it correct that the court does not, however, have the discretion to say to such a woman, as is suggested in this Bill, "For 10 years you are likely to receive maintenance, but the goal is self-sufficiency. The opportunity to retrain and to stand on your own two feet must be given. It will be given for a period, but you have not a right to maintenance until death."? When the 1969 legislation was being debated, we heard of women who were brought up to believe that, in return for bed, board and fidelity, come what may, they should have a right to support until death. I should have thought that a modern woman would find it demeaning to be regarded as someone who must be a dependent for perhaps most of her life—as in the case cited by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The court requires the discretion to deal with a particular circumstance. It fails to have that power at the moment, but it would do so if the Bill were passed.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument with great care. Is there not the idea of an ideal situation at the

  419
  basis of his argument? Are not training, maintenance and job opportunities for these individual cases available in our present society? Are they not likely to be available in the society of the next decade?
  Mr. Abse: I agree with my hon. Friend. I stress that the Bill will not affect the overwhelming majority of divorced people. How can we imagine that it would affect them when we know the plight of one-parent families? Until the Finer report is implemented, we shall find ourselves with the challenges that my hon. Friend clearly has in mind in putting his question to me. That does not mean that I have to take the view of the National Council for One Parent Families, which does itself little justice when it urges us to vote against the Bill on the grounds that we must have
  "priority for all children, not just those whose parents are able to divorce."
  It is an ugly form of egalitarianism that would deny any help to a child unless every child in the land received the same help.
  I understand and sympathise with the frustration of groups such as the council but the Bill does not set out to implement the Finer report. I do not think either that such groups as the council help their cause by devaluing the first tentative step—one that has been asked for repeatedly by deputations and in motions tabled by hon. Members —that we are taking towards a child-centred divorce. There is the insistence within the Bill that, no matter what the circumstances of the case may be, the court's first consideration must be the children of the family. We are radically altering the focus of the courts when they direct their attention to maintenance.
  The lobbies that are dismissive of this new approach and which claim that it is a charade—they are right to say that in many instances the financial situation of the custodial parent and child are in any event inextricably linked— should recall that they often complain about non-compliance with orders. Knowing that there is a greater readiness on the part of an aggrieved spouse to pay for his children than for his wife, it seems bizarre that the various lobbies should oppose a provision that will make it more likely that the obligations of an order will be met.
  Surely the second family—the husband and second wife and their children—have a right to know that there may be financial light at the end of the tunnel, and that when the child or the children of the first marriage have grown up the first wife will not necessarily have to be maintained forever. When there is money within a marriage, the courts will be able to order a lump sum settlement. They will be able to do so in a different way if they take notice of the proposed direction that the children's interests must be considered first. They will not necessarily make any capital sums over to the wife, which so often leads, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon, the shadow Attorney-General, has said, to the first wife dying intestate and to her new husband, who has the estate, leaving the children of the original marriage without the benefit of a settlement.
  I reject the view that is put forward by some spokespersons that conduct is irrelevant when assessing financial liability. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has argued that conduct should not be regarded. If a woman has saved money and has put it into a home on marriage, and she has the misfortune to marry an utter waster, a gambler and a
  420
  womaniser who squanders the money that she may have saved, I do not believe that the courts, in deciding how they should allocate the assets of the matrimonial home at the end of the marriage should disregard the conduct of the husband.
  When a husband finds that he has a wife who has failed him — many such cases have recently been coming before the courts—and has taken a lover while having young children, I do not think it right that at the end of the day the courts should not take into account what took place. When a woman takes a lover and ousts her husband from the matrimonial home, the courts will rightly protect the children and allow them to remain in the matrimonial home, but it surely cannot be argued, when the children have grown up, that the courts should not take into account, when ultimately dividing the asset of the matrimonial home what took place earlier. I find this amoral attitude repugnant, and I make no bones about it.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to take conduct into account in the way set out in the Bill would result in many acrimonious disputes in the courts which would be similar to those that arose in the old cruelty divorce cases? Does he agree also that, if that happened, it would be extremely detrimental to the interests of the children and to the future resolution of possible dispute between the parents about the children?
  Mr. Abse: When I was taking the 1969 Act through Parliament with the late Alec Jones, we had to include a clause in the then Bill—the provision is still within statute law — that all conduct must be taken into account. That is the existing statutory provision. The judges had more sense than the House. Over the years the judges have become aware of the obvious contradiction which the Bill's sponsors were forced to accept, and have sought to reach a position in which only gross and obviously disgraceful conduct should be regarded. The attempt is now being made to confirm the existing position. The Bill is not seeking to add to it. Indeed. in all probability it is restricting it. 1 share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend that it may be wiser for us in Committee to narrow the provision still further, rather than to leave matters to the judges. We should not, however, satisfy the feelings of justice within the community if we took the extravagant view, which is clearly being urged upon us in some quarters, that we should entirely disregard conduct.
  I have insisted that the Bill has been wrested from the Government by the all-party committee, but there has never been any unanimity on the part of that committee on the issues raised in part I. There has been no pressure by way of motions in the House or from the all-party group, or from any other source, on behalf of those provisions The judges have been caused serious inconvenience. They have had the problem of trying to deal with the circumstances in which they have permitted divorce to take place within three years.
  The circumstances that the Attorney-General referred to occur in individual cases, and that is well known to those of us who practise in the courts. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, we must have a sense of balance. There are individual cases of hardship. All of us who practise in the courts can recite cases in which the honeymoon was a traumatic experience rather than a blessing. There are hard cases in which a woman

  421
  or a man wants to get out of a marriage which she or he has contracted into on the ground that it has brought nothing but distress. That proposition has to be weighed against other consequences and I am not happy, for a number of reasons, about the proposition of quickly in and quickly out.
  We know that the Lord Chancellor belaboured the bishops in another place. I do not know why I, such a determined and secular Jew, should so often in these debates have to take the side of the bishops. However, they do not seem to be able to look after themselves very well when faced with the tirades of the Lord Chancellor. The bishops have a stronger case than they have advanced.
  I am not interested only in the general moral issue. The question of the children should always be in our minds no matter which principle may be in existence. The number of brides who go pregnant to their weddings should make us pause for a moment. It is not only in my constituency that pregnant women go to the altar. It happens throughout the country. Each year, about 70,000 births take place within the first 12 months of marriage. It is difficult to determine statistically what proportion of those children are conceived extra-maritally, but it is clearly a high proportion.
  Again, what happens when a woman conceives within the first 12 months — perhaps in the eighth, ninth or tenth month? Is it being suggested that a woman could be divorced at a time when her husband did not know—or indeed when she did not know—that a child was on the way?
  I have no personal experience of divorce, but I have had the blessing of the experience of parenthood. From looking at a little girl and a little boy—I have had both —I know that the little girl anticipates motherhood by playing with dolls. Even in these androgynous days we do not see little boys playing with dolls. They play with other things.
  Mr. Ken Weetch: They play with Action Man.
  Mr. Abse: Yes, that is right.
  Most men do not anticipate parenthood. It is when the child is born, and when it is a little older and they can play with it and relate to it, that the sense of parenthood often begins to develop; and with parenthood comes a modification of conduct. That has happened to most of us.
  Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Abse: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am bringing my speech to an end.
  I believe that it would be dangerous to allow divorce to become easily available just at a time when thousands of children are born. That could result in fathers not being able to establish a relationship with their child. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that children provide an anchorage to marriage. They are not tension-making. In the long run, they are the people who cement marriages. We should not yield to the idea of "quickie" divorces in the first 12 months without having first pondered the question. I do not believe that the other place has pondered well enough—I hope that the Committee will do so—the likely consequences to the family structure in those early years.
  422
  I believe that we should support the Bill but, equally, that we should consider some of its provisions very carefully. I am glad that the Leader of the House has had the wit and sagacity to make use of the new procedure, so that matters can be reviewed.
  My fundamental concern is with the children of second marriages. When two divorced people go to bed—so it is said—they bring with them two other people. They bring with them the memory of other marriages. There is a high incidence of breakdown in second marriages, of which 40 per cent. break down, and there can be little doubt that a considerable number of those marriages break down because added to other problems is that of the financial pressures that flow from the existing situation. I want the children of the second marriages to have a fair deal. There are good and sufficient reasons for us to give the Bill a fair wind, but we should also give further thought to its provisions, especially those in part I.
  6.25 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I am speaking in this debate not because I have been got at or lobbied by single-purpose pressure groups seeking to advertise themselves, but because I firmly believe that the family is the foundation of virtually every free society known to history. As a woman who has been married only once and has had the good fortune to remain married to the same man for 26 years—as the mother of three children, a housewife and home-maker—I have personal experience of the importance of the family in our society. I also believe that there is no finer career for a woman than to be a wife and a mother.
  It is obvious that lifelong marriage is the basis of secure and stable family life and that, to ensure their well-being, children must have that background. However, we should not forget that mothers as well as children need a secure environment while their children are growing up, and that the mother's need for security continues thereafter because, by the time their children have left home, most women are at an age when they are financially insecure unless they are supported.
  The past decade has seen an enormous increase in marital disharmony, and reforms in the divorce law have been demanded. When the Bill was published, a considerable number of women expressed their anxieties to me about the effects of the changes in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I can understand their reservations. I refer to part II of the Bill—"Financial Relief in Matrimonial Proceedings"—and the implications of the words added in the new section 25(2)(a) which were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel):
  "the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters—
  (a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire".
  Despite the contrary view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, this new paragraph, taken in conjunction with paragraph (b), has caused great anxiety to many married women, especially the middle-aged. Let us take the case of a woman who has an excellent career with good prospects. She marries, and when she has

  423
  her first child she decides to give up her job and stay at home to care for that child and for other children later on. Twenty-three years later, when the youngest child is over the age of 18, that woman's husband decides to marry again and start a second family. Paragraph (b) requires a divorce court to consider
  "the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties … has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future".
  That must include the husband's responsibilities to his new family. While the Bill does not specifically propose that the welfare of the children of the second marriage is to be the paramount consideration, it is clear that, as the husband's second family expands, the importance of his first wife's financial requirements will be increasingly pushed into the background.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not dissent from what the hon. Lady is saying, but she must look at paragraph (b) in conjunction with paragraph (f) which speaks of the contribution made by the family.
  Mrs. Roe: I shall deal with that later. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In spite of the words in new section 25 2(f) which relate to any contributions made by looking after the home or caring for the family, I regard with some misgivings the additional words which are being added to the end of paragraph (a). If the new paragraph (a) is taken in conjunction with paragraph (b) it could be construed that the solution that a divorce court will be encouraged to find is that the first wife should become self-sufficient, get herself a job and start a new career in middle age.
  I am not one of the advocates of the so-called meal ticket for life for all divorced women by I can fully sympathise with the vast number of middle-aged women in Britain who are deeply troubled and worried about the implications of the proposals in the Bill. When divorce courts no longer have a duty to place parties to a marriage, as far as is possible, in the same circumstances in which they would have been had the marriage not broken up, a woman such as I have described might find herself in an extremely unenviable position.
  At the age of 45 or more it is extremely difficult to take up a career which has been left more than 20 years ago, or to start afresh in a completely new job. I know because I have done it. I gave up my job when my husband and I started our family. I became a full-time mother at home caring for my children when they were young. I then started a new career in middle age. One has to overcome considerable problems of adaptation in our modern technological world but I was extremely lucky in that I had the full support of my husband and family. It is not so easy when trying to do that on one's own.
  How sad it would be if a middle-aged women might rue the day that she sacrificed her career with the commendable objective of looking after her new family home and caring for her children. Her experience as a mother and housewife is unlikely to put her in a better position than she would have been had she taken the decision to continue her employment. Her circumstances with regard to her occupational pension are just one way in which she would be worse off than if she were still married. As her pension would no longer be linked to her husband's, she would have to start her own. That would obviously mean that she would have a less comfortable retirement and old age. Would it not be right to think that
  424
  a wife who has participated in the accumulation of her husband's entitlement to pension or lump sum should have a right to share in it?
  My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said recently that he is on the side of the first wife in marriages of long duration when there have been children. I agree that the interests of such women should be protected in every possible way. I realise that when one in three marriages end in divorce, the interests of the second wife are also important. However, it should not be ignored that the second wife marries with the full knowledge of her husband's first family. Nor do I relish the spectacle of young women, taking note of the predicament of their parents, forsaking the patterns of behaviour associated with normal family life. Young women today might be far less willing to forsake their careers to take care of their families in the natural way if they fear for their security in 20 years' time.
  I am deeply worried that the fabric of family life might be exposed to the unwelcome pressures that I have described. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for clarification of the clean break principle which is incorporated in the Bill. We in Britain have always valued individual liberty and respected family life. It is to be hoped that, in this age of high divorce rates, the liberty of the divorced woman and the integrity of the family will not be threatened. If we are to create a more stable and secure background in which future generations can thrive and withstand the pressures of pace in the modern world, we must ensure that legislation does not assist in breaking down family life but that it is used to strengthen it.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I wholeheartedly agree with the Attorney-General's statements about the old depravity and hardship tests. I might claim to having practised, professionally, those tests more recently than the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. The depravity and hardship tests have recently become characterised by solicitors and counsel perforce wrapping up minor privations as exceptional hardship and trivial conduct as exceptional depravity. Whatever view the House takes about a one-year time bar or no time bar—whatever view it takes about whether there should be a time bar—it is high time that that unsatisfactory pair of tests was removed.
  I have substantial objections to raise, one in general terms and three in particular terms. The general objection is as to the miserable narrowness of the Bill's scope. Part V is no more than a tenuous and small step into an area which needs close attention and wholesale review. It has been recognised for years that the law of domestic proceedings is in desperate need of thoroughgoing revision. Indeed, the Attorney-General realistically recognised that today. It needs that revision in regard to procedure as well as to content.
  Daily in the High Court, the county court and the magistrates court, in open court and in chambers, overlapping jurisdictions are still exercised. Just over one year ago the Lord Chancellor rightly condemned what he accurately described as "forum shopping". We are all anxious about the sanctity of marriage but our concern for it should not allow us to overlook the unholy mess—for that it is what it is—in the law of divorce.

  425
  Day after day in the county court, judges have to reconcile apparently inconsistent statutes. That was shown most clearly by the recent decision of the House of Lords in Richards v. Richards in which their Lordships had to reconcile statutes which apparently dealt in a quite different way with the same set of circumstances.
  As has been mentioned, as long ago as July 1974, the Finer report on one-parent families recognised the need for a unified family court. We should remind ourselves of that report's aims and ask why we are not putting them into practice today. It is already 10 years since Finer reported. At paragraph 4.283 the report says:
  "In the light of the foregoing considerations, we set out the six major criteria which a family court must in principle satisfy:

  (1) the family court must be an impartial judicial institution, regulating the rights of citizens and settling their disputes according to law;

  (2) the family court will be a unified institution in a system of family law which applies a uniform set of legal rules, derived from a single moral standard and applicable to all citizens;"

  The latter point is extremely important. The report continues:
  "(3) the family court will organise its work in such a way as to provide the best possible facilities for conciliation between parties in matrimonial disputes;
  (4) the family court will have professionally trained staff to assist both the court and the parties appearing before it in all matters requiring social work services and advice;
  (5) the family court will work in close relationship with the social security authorities in the assessment both of need and of liability in cases involving financial provision;
  (6) the family court will organise its procedure, sittings and administrative services and arrangements with a view to gaining the confidence and maximising the convenience of the citizens who appear before it."
  It is fair to say that the Government have shown signs of really wanting to tackle the whole problem, possibly with something along the lines of Finer. My objection to the Bill is that it is far too early. We could not possibly disagree with any of the six aims set out in the passage that I have quoted from the Finer report, but we should be dealing here and now with the far wider problems of family law, and looking for something along the broad lines that Finer recommends. It is not helpful to deal piecemeal with important issues such as those that we are considering today, which should form part of an overall view. We are wasting a legislative opportunity to come to grips with family law.
  I move from what is effectively a criticism of part V — its limited consequences — to some particular objectives to it. First, there is the problem of conduct. It is the considered view of almost all the bodies that have given great attention, in the best of faith, to the Bill, that the Bill included a drastic alteration in emphasis to be be given to conduct. I do not say that conduct should never be regarded.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), who was involved in promoting earlier legislation with such hard work and care, highlighted a particular type of case in which it would be monsterous not to have regard to conduct — a case in which conduct had led to the dissipation of family assets. The problem is that the Bill's provisions, and new section 25(2)(g) in particular, are such that there is a real danger that those nightmare cruelty cases, which the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General
  426
  will probably remember better than I do from their time as juniors at the Bar, will be repeated, not in open court but in chambers before registrars or wherever. There will be long issues that it will be difficult to resolve and there will be acrimonious hearings.
  There is an illogicality between on the one hand saying that we must regard the interests of the children as paramount and on the other allowing such a dicussion of conduct to take place. If conciliation and resolution in matrimonial disputes are to be important aims, then paragraph (g) is a disaster area for the children of the marriages coming under consideration.
  This is particularly so because the future of the children depends so much on divorced parents being able to cooperate for years after the separation about the arrangements for the children, and not just about who sees which child on Saturday afternoon. There will be financial arrangements, schooling, problems of what type of further education, or of the job opportunities to which they can go. They may have to consent to the marriage at an early age of the children. In issues as vital as those, if conduct is to be litigated at the length that is inevitable following the enactment of paragraph (g), these children will be gravely affected.
  The test enunciated by Lord Justice Ormrod and approved by Lord Denning in Wachtel v. Wachtel was a test founded on judicial rhetoric and to that extent was unsatisfactory because there was a great deal of uncertainty before and to a lesser extent after that enunciation. Those in practice in the divorce courts fear that the Bill, if it is enacted, will cause a further and extremely lengthy round of litigation until once more judicial rhetoric takes a grip on legislation and a test, perhaps the wrong one, is enunciated once again to deal with the position.
  There is then the point about earning capacity. I do not feel that I could do better justice to a subject that has been dealt with with such skill and eloquence by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I take on board every point that she has made and I could not better what she said, but I shall add one or two points. We should not forget that the most recent research by one of the major insurance companies showed that the value of the work done by a mother of two in the home is equivalent to £227 a week. When we look at earning capacity and hear these whingeing second-time husbands, let us not forget that the wife has been working, doing a job that should in some instances have been paid far better than the husband's job was ever paid, while they were living together.
  Let us also not forget, as has been mentioned earlier, the paucity of research into what the effect of paragraph (g) would be. We should not allowed such a provision to become part of the law until we know what its effect will be.
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who was in the House earlier, made an intervention in which he put forward a view contrary to that of the hon. Member for Boxbourne. He said, in a tone of criticism and obviously not supporting the provision, that it does not mean anything different, but is the present law wrapped up in different paper. Some may argue that he is correct. If we are wrong in believing that the Bill will alter the position of wives substantially, and if it is right that the Bill does not make any difference to the law as it stands, in those circumstances as well we should not be putting these provisions on the statute book. The worst sort of

  427
  legislation is cosmetic legislation, and the House should not be wasting its time on it. On both counts, paragraph (g) is something that, in agreement with the majority of the bodies that have made representations on the subject, we should not countenance.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I must declare an interest in that I have been through the mangle of divorce proceedings. If the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) had suffered similarly, he too would feel a certain passion about these matters. It would be wrong for me to speak on those grounds in this debate. However, my complaints as a citizen are much echoed wherever I go by those who have been divorced. I do not feel that I have had justice. I have no authority to quote my ex-wife, but I have good reason to believe that she feels the same, and thousands like us complain about the present state of the law. I am aware that from any court, one party usually goes away feeling dissatisfied, but there must be something wrong when both parties go away dissatisfied.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) has been muttering about the wisdom of Solomon for much of the afternoon, and I am the first to accept that a fair and sensible form of justice in the extremely difficult circumstances of divorce is an extraordinarily difficult solution to find. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that an aggressive person who wants a divorce and proceeds to file a petition places the other half in a difficult spot because, no matter what happens, large costs will be incurred and the marriage will not be put back together. That is the advice that I was given, and it is the advice to which I submitted.
  There has been much discussion about conduct, and I do not wish to relate it in any way to my case. However, many people say to me how wrong they feel the interpretation of the law is today. The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke most eloquently, and I agree with every word that he said about conduct, but surely this Bill is simply enacting what the courts have been practising. It is wrong to regard conduct only in the way it is regarded now. In cases where a woman is deserted by her husband, who goes off with someone else, after she has brought up the family, surely conduct should be a part of the settlement. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who believes that this should not be taken into account in the financial settlement after the breakup of a marriage.
  There is something that I can say that not many other hon. Members who are here can say, because they are lawyers. The legal costs in divorce have become outrageous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The chances are that the woman will not have had much to do with the legal profession before. Indeed, many men will not have been to a solicitor before. At a time of high passion and emotion, there are people—I will not name them, but they are well known in the profession—who use their position to charge outrageously, write letters that need not be written, prolong proceedings unnecessarily—in my case, two years—and behave in a manner that puts the whole legal profession in disrepute.
  The responsibility for dealing with the matter lies, I believe, with the judges. I am told that they are frequently unable or unwilling to deal with the question of reasonable costs. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to do something about this matter, because, although
  428
  the issue of legal costs arises in every sphere, in this respect it is an outrage. In part, that is due to the fact that it is necessary to use the existing legal system. I agree with those who believe that, instead of preparing this Bill and taking so long to bring it to the House, work on the family courts would have been a far more profitable exercise. I believe in particular, that attempts at conciliation should always be forced on the parties concerned, and I wholeheartedly concur with the recommendations that have just been read out by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
  Divorce is a horrible disease that is catching, and it is spreading far too widely. I do not believe in it. I believe that I have been a victim of it. Socially and morally, we have come to accept it as a routine of everyday life. In my opinion, that is wrong. There is nothing that I can find in the Bill that will help me with my complaints or help the institution of marriage. What we are doing today w ill raise false hopes in many hearts. Moreover, we are wasting time, and wasting parliamentary time is something that we constantly complain about. In my view, we have no business producing legislation of this kind when we have so many more important things to do. I shall not, therefore, support the Government tonight.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Ken Weetch: I want to make a short contribution to the debate, because much of my constituency work and problems stem from marriages that have broken down. In the debate in the other place the Lord Chancellor said that when a marriage breaks down it is a "calamity". He used the word "calamity", and he was right to do so.
  The proposals in the Bill make one realise that legislators attempt to rush in where angels fear to tread. No legal magic wand can be waved to dispel the difficulties. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) say that this legislation did not fit his particular circumstances and did not offer any help. The trouble is that there is no legislation to cover every condition. Divorce and marriage breakup give rise to such a bewildering and complex difference of cases that sometimes it is impossible to discern any pattern at all. Of all the cases that have come to me, as a rank and file constituency Member of Parliament, no two have been the same. So legislation which aims to be a general body of principle cannot be satisfactory in all quarters.
  To get rough justice in some cases is probably as much as one can hope for from legislation. We are in danger in Britain of expecting too much from legislation.
  I look at the issue as a layman, and some of the technicalities are quite beyond me. Nevertheless, it strikes me that legislation should seek to achieve three objectives. First, when there has been an irretrievable breakdown in a marriage, procedures should be such that both parties can get out of the contract with as much dignity as possible. Secondly, of critical importance, and a first priority, must be the welfare of the children, especially if they are very young children. Here, legislation is of little relevance, because no matter what one puts in an Act of Parliament it will not prevent the mother and father from using the children in a most vindictive way, to carry the argument against the other party. The children are used as pawns in a very dirty game. Thirdly, there must be a just and equitable financial settlement, based on as fair an

  429
  assessment as reasonable people can make. That is difficult, but trying to achieve all three objectives is often impossible.
  Much of the argument, in financial terms, arises when there is something to divide. If there is a house, or savings, bits and pieces that are worth something, they give rise to bad feeling and arguments. However, it is much worse when there is nothing at all to divide, when the only thing of value is a council tenancy and the problem is who has the right to live in a council house. That gives rise to desperate problems, and I mean "desperate". I have seen a married man suddenly lose his wife and his tenancy, with no place in which to store his bits and pieces. I have seen such people walking the streets while I sit behind my desk powerless to recommend anything. Divorce is painful for the rich, but, my godfathers, it is painful for the poor. Let us make no mistake about that.
  Most of the problems which I, as a layman, see arising from divorce fall under the headings of children and money, usually in that order. The Bill has taken a lot of stick. I have listened to everything that has been said, but it deserves some credit, because it is a reasonable attempt to solve some of the problems. Whether it succeeds is another matter, but the attempt has been made in good faith.
  It is encouraging to notice, for example, that the first subsection in clause 3 puts care of the children first. I have read this legislation carefully, and some of that which has gone before, and it is encouraging to see that provision, because children are usually the innocent parties of the disruption that takes place.
  It is correct, too, to abandon the principle that the parties can be placed in the same financial position that would have obtained had the marriage not broken down. That is impossible to achieve and it always has been. In my experience many injustices and anomalies have arisen because the courts have been forced to try to achieve that and succeeded only in getting into an incredible mess. The injustices go on and on. It is far better to be flexible and for the court to consider the standard of life enjoyed before the breakdown of the marriage as a factor. That will help to create a sounder framework.
  I have considerable doubts about that part of the proposed new section 25 which relates to the conduct of the parties. One of the factors to be considered is
  "the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it".
  I am advised that the conduct of the parties is taken into consideration by those who try to fix a settlement, although often it is not formally referred to. What has to be taken into consideration is whether the conduct is in some way "obvious and gross". If section 25(2)(g) is enacted it will open up a veritable Pandora's box of difficulties. I might be rash enough to make a rough and ready judgment about who was at fault, although I would never say so. It would go through my mind, but, make no mistake about it, anybody who does that can be as wrong as he can be right. It is difficult to allocate blame. If that section is not considered carefully, we shall be starting on a journey through a minefield.
  What does "inequitable" mean? I can imagine some lawyers discussing that for days. They argue for longer than that over much more simple things. That will take up
  430
  much time and money. With the wisdom of Solomon it might be possible to discern who is at fault, but I doubt whether ordinary mortals could do so. I doubt whether it is worth trying to do so at all, because it will give rise to more trouble than it is worth.
  I approve the reduction from three years to one year in the time when a divorce can be put in hand. I have never taken the view that easier divorce procedures are the cause of more divorces. In the past people have hung on in marriages that were a prison, and in more civilised times there should be something better. In my constituency I often hear people say that marriage should be worked at and given time, as if to be bound by the letter of the law will make things better and somehow offer salvation. I take the reverse view. I have observed over the years that many marriages totter on and on when both sides should have given up years before for the benefit of each party. However, I admit that that is one person's experience as against another's.
  This is a complex measure and much of it will need further debate. It must be scrutinised critically in Committee. However, this Second Reading debate is concerned with principle, and that is always a matter of this and that. On balance, I am disposed to support the Bill.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) explained and analysed the Bill at the beginning of the debate in a way that one would expect from such distinguised lawyers. However, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and others have done us a service in reminding us just what we are talking about. They have injected the human element. They have reminded us that we are talking about people.
  It is just as well that we should remember that we are talking about the break-up of marriages and the disintegration of families. We are discussing how two people, having pledged themselves to each other before witnesses to become a married couple, who may have started a family, reach the point where they decide to break that pledge. We are discussing how and when they should do that, what conditions should attach, and what the subsequent arrangements should be. I am not trying to be emotional about this, although one could become so. Nor, I hope, do I sound moralistic, although there are strong moral issues involved.
  The House, like the Law Commission, normally deals with legislation about the technicalities of the organisation and regulation of our society. We are considering today an extra dimension. The foundation of our society is the family, which is the product of marriage. We undermine it at our peril. My fear is that marriage would be undermined by accepting the recommendation of the Law Commission—embodied in clause 1—to reduce to one year the time that must elapse after marriage before divorce proceedings can commence.
  Although I disagree with the Law Commission's recommendation, I commend some of the observations in its report. Paragraph 2.13 states:
  "In social terms we are concerned about the attitudes people have towards marriage and divorce. We believe that it is in the interests of society that the institution of marriage be respected and that divorce be regarded as regrettable. It follows that there is an obvious danger that any move which would appear to make divorce easier to obtain would be seen as further eroding the

  431
  stability and dignity of marriage … a restriction on divorce 'is a useful safeguard against irresponsible or trial marriages and a valuable external buttress to the stability of marriages during the difficult early years.'"
  In paragraph 2.15, the Law Commission states:
  "what is in issue is the effect of a change in the law."
  That is relevant when trying to draw comparisons with what applies, for example in Scotland. Paragraph 2.15 continues:
  "It is reasonable to suppose that the very making of a change would not only draw attention to the matter but would create, at least, an impression that divorce had been made either easier or more difficult."
  Making divorce easier must lead to a more casual and less responsible approach to marriage. In the marriage service, the Church of England speaks of matrimony as something that should not be undertaken "unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly". How right, but what will be the effect of clause 1 if it is enacted?
  This issue was the subject of some heated exchanges in the other place between the Lord Chancellor and some of the bishops, and in particular the bishop of my home diocese of Rochester. There have been times, particularly during the past four years when I have had some involvement with the Home Office, when I have had occasion to criticise the bishops for their inclination to pronounce on issues on which I felt that they were ill informed. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has some sympathy with my point. However, this time I believe that the bishops are talking about a subject that they know about, and my sympathies are with them.
  I regret to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that their explanations and speeches will not be that widely studied. The Bill will not be examined line by line outside the Chamber. The message that will go out is that in future couples can get divorced in one year. Indeed, the Law Commission comments that when it issued its first working paper, the Daily Mirror carried the headline "The real quickie divorce", and even The Times said:
  "Commission favours easing curbs on divorce".
  Mr. Fairbairn: Perhaps my hon. Friend can advise me, because I do not know, but before the concept of breakdown of marriage was the ground for divorce, in England could not someone get divorced, or start divorce proceedings the day after the marriage, on the ground of adultery?
  Mr. Sims: With respect, my hon. and learned Friend's intervention is irrelevant to my point. I am talking about the situation now, and the effect of enacting clause 1. The consequences of the change proposed are very serious. The issue is too serious and important to be decided by the Law Commission—which consists, after all, of only five people—or with respect, by a Standing Committee. Therefore, I am glad to have the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings, there will be an opportunity in some form or another to debate clause 1 on the Floor of the House. I earnestly hope that in keeping with tradition, the issue will be decided on a free vote, as it cuts across party lines.
  Having spoken in those terms, I should add that I accept straight away that marriages break down. Alas, we are all imperfect, and all make mistakes. Of course relationships
  432
  will be subjected to strains and stresses that eventually become unbearable. The point may well be reached at which, in the best interests of the partners and the children, the two individuals should lead separate lives.
  Even if that stage is reached fairly early in the marriage, judicial separation—to which there is no bar—is open to the parties and can give all the reliefs that they are likely to need, other than the freedom to remarry straight away. However, given that some marriages break down irretrievably, divorce is, of course, the only recourse. Thereafter, the problem is that there should be some equitable arrangement.
  The hon. Member for Ipswich referred to rough justice. One of the organisations lobbying us calls itself the Campaign for Justice in Divorce. That title shows some wishful thinking. Can there really be justice in divorce? Justice for whom—for the husband, the first wife, the second wife, the children of the first marriage or the children of the second marriage? The fact is that in 99 cases out of 100, what is justice for one is injustice for another.
  Some years ago I sat as a lay magistrate. A divorced wife would complain that she was not receiving her maintenance. The husband would then come before me explaining his commitments and the fact that he had married again. He would tell me his income. On seeing the figures, one would realise that no course of action would provide justice for all the parties. We all have constituency experience of cases in which, for example, the second wife would like to work. She may well be a qualified person, but she is reluctant to work, because she thinks that if she does so, the first wife will apply for increased maintenance and, in effect she will be supporting her. We know of husbands who have been paying maintenance for years to an ex-wife who is capable of earning some living for herself, but is unwilling to do so. Of course, we are all familiar with the problems of the divorced wife with children. Her problems are more than simply financial.
  Some of the later provisions in the Bill make some effort to meet those difficulties. I do not believe that the clean break clause is the revolutionary change that it is portrayed to be in some quarters. It simply involves a further facility being open to the court, which will be used solely in appropriate circumstances. However, it has inherent dangers. There is danger that the divorced mother may feel that she will have to go out to work sooner than she would otherwise have done. She will therefore pay less attention to the children, and that would negate one of the Bill's aims—that the children should be given the first consideration.
  It is extremely important that the Government should carefully watch the effect of the change. I draw attention, in particular, to the first recommendation in the Law Commission's report:
  "Any future legislation dealing with the financial consequences of divorce should be subject to continous monitoring and periodical reports to Parliament."
  In the Bill I see no reference to either monitoring or reports. It may well not be appropriate for such a reference to appear in the Bill, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will say that the Government intend to comply with that recommendation.
  Given that the welfare of the child is the first consideration, I hope that the Special Standing Committee will provide us with an opportunity to look very carefully at exactly what that means. The right hon. and learned

  433
  Member for Aberavon pointed out that "first" could mean all sorts of things. I shall not repeat the argument, but it is important that the face of the Bill should clarify exactly what "first consideration" means. For reasons that I have never been able to understand, the courts are supposed to be guided entirely by what is in the Act and are apparently not supposed to refer to Hansard.
  I hope too that the opportunity may be taken to explore several other problems, including that of the "child of the family". This has caused confusion in the past in circumstances where a husband marries and acquires children from his wife's first marriage. If the second marriage breaks down, such a child is apparently to be regarded as a child of the family. There is an argument for making a distinction between a child of the marriage and a child of the family; one child is acquired, as it were, rather than a product of the marriage.
  Clauses 3 and 8 change the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 by specifying matters to which the court shall have regard. Conduct is included. It should be made clear whether this is purely conduct within the marriage or more widely. If it is the latter, it opens up a wider sphere than perhaps was intended.
  I should like to endorse warmly everything said about the absence of any reference to conciliation in the Bill. I thought the interdepartmental report was inadequate and disappointing, especially in the way in which it appeared to reject out-of-court conciliation. I am glad that further inquiries are going on, but this suggests that there will be more delay before something specific on conciliation is introduced.
  In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) suggested that pilot projects should be established. A number of projects are already in existence. I shall not detain the House by yielding to the temptation to say more about the work being done in the Bromley conciliation service in my constituency, save to point out that 60 per cent. of the cases are conciliated. If the parties can be helped to agree on the issues which follow from divorce, not only will it save an enormous amount of time and money but it will create a far better atmosphere in which the children may develop in a split family.
  The Government should realise that conciliation is important. It is urgent. Again, since we are following the recommendations of the Law Commission, may I remind my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that one of its recommendations was that
  "everything possible should be done to encourage recourse to conciliation rather than litigation."
  Part V of the Bill opens by explaining that it
  "makes fresh provision to improve the distribution and transfer of family business between the High Court and the county courts."
  As other hon. Members have said, once again the Government have avoided action on family courts, which has been a crying need since Finer, if not before. I know that the Lord Chancellor has set up a new Government study on this but one has the suspicion, particularly with its timing, that this is just another gesture to ward off criticism for lack of specific action on this matter.
  There was an earlier discussion document on family courts. Nothing has flowed from it and it seems to have disappeared. I appreciate that there are many different
  434
  ideas as to how a system can be devised, who will sit in the family court, what exactly its powers will be and what type of cases it should handle. These difficulties are no excuse for nothing happening. I am an active member of the British Juvenile and Family Courts Society which has a working party trying, as an organisation without vested interests in various professions, to produce a scheme which will prove workable.
  I intend to support the Bill tonight to enable it to be scrutinised by the Special Standing Committee procedure, which is very valuable, and to be debated in detail. I have expressed my anxiety over some aspects. When the Bill returns to the Floor of the House I shall need far stronger arguments than I have heard so far to persuade me to support clause 1.
  7.24 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: The Bill is supposed to remedy injustice, but I believe that it will create injustice. At the moment it is possible to get a divorce if the marriage has irretrievably broken down. If someone applies for a divorce within three years of the marriage, one has to show that not only has the marriage broken down irretrievably but that the continuation of the marriage will cause exceptional depravity or exceptional hardship. It is that flexible rule that the Government plan to replace with an absolute bar, that is, that one cannot get a divorce, irrespective of the circumstances, within the first year of the marriage.
  I shall give three examples of what has happened in the past. What if the wife decides that the marriage was a terrible mistake and that she does not want to continue it? She wants to marry someone else, goes and lives with him and has his baby, all within the first year of marriage. That has happened. In that circumstance it is nonsense to tell the parties, "Give it a year and see whether it will work." The marriage has clearly broken down irretrievably.
  What if the husband discovers that he is homosexual? Again, that has happened. It is nonsense in that circumstance to say, "Give it a year and see whether you make a go of it." What if the husband has severely beaten the wife? Are we to say to the wife, "Give it a year and see whether it will work out"? It is wrong to say that under no circumstances can there be a divorce within one year. There should not be a time bar. People would still have to show irretrievable breakdown to get a divorce, and one of the grounds for irretrievable breakdown. The fears that having no time bar will undermine the institution of marriage are unfounded.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: In the example of the lady who decided after a very short time that her marriage was a disaster, and went to live with another man and had his baby, all within the first year, the hon. Lady said that divorce should be able to take place. She then said that the grounds of divorce ought to be applicable in that set of circumstances. What ground and what guideline would be available to the lady in that example?
  Ms. Harman: The ground would be that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The husband could petition for divorce possibly on the ground of unreasonable behaviour or adultery.
  In regard to whether the absence of a time bar would undermine the institution of marriage, let us take the

  435
  example of Scotland. The former Solicitor-General for Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) has explained to us that the figures show that in Scotland, where there is no time bar, divorces within the early years of marriage are less frequent. Therefore, there is no cause and effect between the time limit within which one can get a divorce and how long marriage lasts.
  We should remember that divorce is a consequence of marriage breakdown. It is a symptom of a marriage having already broken down and not a cause of marriage breakdown. Therefore, I oppose the Government's proposals in part I. I am not happy with the current three-year rule, but I am completely against the idea of an inflexible one-year rule.
  The most important part of the Bill is that which deals with maintenance. The assumption behind it is that we must stamp out the "alimony drone" and end the "meal ticket for life". There is no such thing. Only limited research has been done, but research by the centre for socio-legal studies in Oxford has found no evidence of the "alimony drone". The real problem is not a handful of well-publicised cases where a woman gets a big out-of-court settlement from a wealthy husband, but the overwhelming majority of women and their children who get nothing.
  We must get maintenance in perspective. Only 4 per cent. of divorced wives rely wholly on maintenance payments—the rest live on supplementary benefit or on their earnings, often from low-paid part-time work. As many as half of the orders made by the courts for maintenance for a wife and child together amount to no more that £10 a week. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) spoke about the stranglehold of the first wife on a husband. Some stranglehold, if 96 per cent. of those wives depend on supplementary benefit and their own part-time earnings. Some stranglehold, if half of all the orders for a wife and child are for less than £10 a week. It is a nonsense. It is a travesty that the Government should close their eyes to the real hardship and poverty of many divorced wives and their children, in order to pursue that mythical creature, "the alimony drone". The effect of the attempt to catch "the alimony drone" may hit at the already struggling first wife.
  I now wish to discuss the clean break. As an abstract theory, the idea that two partners at the end of their marriage can go their separate ways —being separate, independent and equal—is absolutely fine. But what if there are dependent children? There is nothing in the Bill that says that the clean break will not apply to divorced wives with dependent children. The Bill has already been through another place, so the omission could have been noticed and could have been remedied, but it has not. So let us not believe that the clean break will not hurt dependent children—that is only a pious hope unless it is written into the Bill.
  Saying that the end of the marriage ends obligations and that that amounts to equality, ignores the effect that marriage, in the real world, has on the earning power of the two spouses. It ignores the division of labour in the home. I wish that matters were not as they are, but in the real world the woman has the primary responsibility for looking after the home, looking after the children and looking after the husband. Her work at home helps the husband in his job. It enables him to do overtime. His wife collects his children from school; he is able to develop his
  436
  career. The wife's home responsibility confines her eh her to part-time work or to work near to her home. That limits her job opportunities.
  Indeed, the wife is encouraged by many people to put her work second to her husband's work — she is encouraged to put her husband first. In doing that, she has directly contributed to the husband's earning power—not only at the time that he is earning, but to his future earnings. At the same time, she is directly limiting her own earning power.
  Even if the children have grown up, it is still an unequal position. I agree wholeheartedly with the points made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Even if the children are grown up, after many years of marriage it is wrong to say that, because the husband is earning, the wife can go out and earn. She has contributed over the years to his earning power and has limited her own.
  I sometimes think that the way in which we describe dependent wives is insulting. We talk in terms of financial dependence — but we overlook the dependence of husbands. Many husbands depend on their wives to look after their children, to keep the home going, to keep the shirts clean and to put the food on the table. We should look more equally at the concept of dependence. The Government say that the woman should stay at home and put her family first, that the relationship between mother and child is all-important, that we do not need nurseries; and they also obstruct proposals for equal pay. Yet, on the other hand, the Bill calls for equality. They are trying to have it both ways.
  What about the arguments put forward by some hon. Members that a man's responsibilities may grow and he takes on new responsibilities with a new wife and more children—and supposing that the wife has a boy friend supporting her. In that case he can always return to the court and ask for the maintenance order to be varied. If there is a change in either his or her circumstances, under the present law he can go to the courts and say that he cannot manage the payments. Half of those who have written circular letters to hon. Members about their difficult circumstances—the men with second wives—should go to the courts and explain their position fully and get maintenance orders varied.
  Mr. Best: Does the hon. Lady accept that the position is not quite so simple? In many cases an ex-husband will not obtain legal aid for returning to the court time and time again. Such husbands find that a grave financial drain. But an ex-wife can often obtain legal aid and can, therefore, go to the court. I do not derogate much of what the hon. Lady says, but I hope that she will acknowledge my point. Is she aware that the Oxford study that she quoted earlier, which she used as statistical evidence, is based on the evidence of only 52 men and 119 women on the question of maintenance?
  Ms. Harman: I shall return to that research later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the divorced wife is eligible for legal aid because she does not have any money. The husband is not eligible because he does have money.
  Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Lady agree that there has been a great deal of discussion about the position of the second wife who has no earning capacity? Perhaps she has to stay at home and look after the children. Her position

  437
  will not be altered by the Bill. It is far from being the second wife's charter. The Bill clearly recognises the need of the first wife for support.
  Ms. Harman: Either the Bill does nothing, in which case there is no point in voting for it, or it does the wrong thing—which I believe it does, and so I shall not vote for it.
  The courts have moved away slightly—although not as much as I want—from having as central in their considerations the question of conduct. Yet the Bill provides for them to take conduct into account, if it would be inequitable to disregard it. That puts conduct firmly back on to the centre stage. Whatever Lord Scarman or any other of their lordships have said—either in the courts or privately to the Attorney-General—about how they think the scenario will emerge, I shall tell the House what I believe will happen. The husband will tell the solicitor that he has plans to marry again, that the future wife is young and wants to have children and that he does not want huge maintenance bills. The solicitor will tell him that the courts must take conduct into account. He will advise the husband that if he can dredge up misconduct allegations against the first wife, and put together an affidavit that shows that she was a thoroughly unworthy creature, that may help reduce the maintenance bill. Unfortunately, that provision gives the husband a financial vested interest in slagging off his first wife in court.
  That cuts only one way. The wife will not have a financial vested interest in slagging off the husband in court. However badly he has behaved, she cannot get more than he can afford to pay. Therefore, the provision cuts entirely one way.
  The Government have recognised in their arguments for abolishing the three-year rule how damaging mud-slinging is. They have recognised how subjective are the judgments that the courts have been asked to make, so why are the courts still being asked to make subjective judgments this time on maintenance?
  Children will suffer in two ways if the maintenance provisions of the Bill come into effect. First, they will suffer because of the mud-slinging that the Bill will institutionalise. The House has heard the warnings of the Law Society in this respect; it is in a good position to know, since its members will be advising the husbands. Secondly, the children will suffer financially. The standard of living of the children cannot be separated from the standard of living of the spouse in whose care they are. How is it possible to punish the divorced wife for her misconduct by reducing her maintenance, and not at the same time punish the children who live with her, and for whose care she is primarily responsible? It is not as simple as looking at who has deserted, or who has committed adultery. I wish that it were that simple, but marriage breakdown, and the deterioration of relationships, are a complicated business. It may be a question of people growing apart, or changing and not being able to get on any more. The idea that one can ask judges to sit in judgment on people, and decide whose conduct is right and whose conduct is wrong, is a terrible one. I hope that I never find myself in that situation with a judge looking at my conduct, and deciding whether he thinks that I have behaved properly in a marriage. Perish the thought. The courts should not consider conduct. The needs of the two
  438
  parties and their contributions to the marriage should be taken into account — including looking after children, washing the shirts, getting dinner on the table and picking up the children from school, and consideration should be given to the resources available in a marriage.
  The House is being asked to legislate in ignorance. I have asked numerous parliamentary questions about the financial position of spouses after divorce. The Lord Chancellor has admitted that information about the consequences after divorce is not available. The study of the socio-legal centre at Woolstone college, Oxford, referred to by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) was cited by the Lord Chancellor as the only evidence of what happens after marriage breakdown. I admit that it is a small-scale study. No larger study exists because the information is not available.
  The House is asked to take a leap in the dark by changing the law without knowing what the present situation is, let alone what the future is likely to be. The research information in the Oxford study supports what I say, and shows that matters will be made worse if the Bill is enacted.
  Much has been made of the fact that the Bill is based on the proposals of the Law Commission. Hon. Members appear to have overlooked the fact that the Law Commission said, firstly, that there should not be piecemeal legislation in this important matter, and, secondly, that there should be more research.
  The claim has been made that the Bill is child-centred. It is not. There are two lines of pious hope about putting the needs of the children first, but no suggestion has been made for a framework within which to do that. As I have said, the effect of the Bill will be to penalise children financially by penalising the parent who looks after them, and to harm the children emotionally by encouraging the parents to be at loggerheads.
  The Bill fails to give the courts guidance on the costs of bringing up children, although that information is available. The Lord Chancellor's Department should issue circulars to the courts giving guidance on the cost of bringing up a child. I wonder how many judges, when hearing applications for maintenance, have a clue about what it costs to buy the many things that children need.
  In place of this Bill, a Bill should have been introduced instituting a conciliation procedure. The parties would then have been encouraged to come to an agreement about the arrangements for children, and how scarce resources should be divided. Secondly, there should be a system of family courts. Thirdly, where there are two households and perhaps only one main income, it should be recognised that there is not sufficient money to go round. Although the Government have not provided in the Bill for increased child benefit or single-parent benefit, it would have been possible to make such provision. If the Government had proposed in the Bill to alter the system of private maintenance, recognising that that represented only a tiny fraction of what divorced wives rely on, and had then substantially increased benefits in line with the cost of bringing up children, such provision might have been acceptable. The Government have not chosen to do that.
  Where a husband can pay for children, I believe that he should do so, and should be made to do so. Enforcement procedures for maintenance are wretched and ineffective. Where the husband cannot pay, which will, more often than not, be the case, provision should be made for adequate benefits. Better still, the state should pay the wife

  439
  and the child, and endeavour to reclaim the amount from the husband, if he is able to pay. Such provision would eliminate the terrible bitterness involved in husband and wife arguing about money in the courts year after year. The Bill goes in the wrong direction and will increase bitterness. It will further impoverish divorced wives and their children. I shall vote against the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friends and Conservative Members will join me in the Lobby.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I imagine that you, more than any other hon. Member of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not be surprised to see that a union between me and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is an unlikely marriage. When she began her speech I fell in love with her, when she was half way through it, I married her, but unfortunately, as so often in marriage, we drifted apart, and by the end the matter had irretrievably broken down.
  Mr. John Prescott: The voice of experience.
  Mr. Fairbairn: If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, it is from experience that one should talk—something that he does not always do himself.
  Perhaps a Scot may briefly, modestly and humbly make some observations on the Bill. Although there is a Scottish section which concerns foreign marriage, of which I heartily approve, and its financial consequences, I do not wish to dwell on the Scottish aspects. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friends will not take it amiss to receive advice from a tartan junior to their rear.
  The main thrust of the objection to the Bill has been in part I, and the concept of the 12-month rule. I think I am right in reminding the House—it is an odd fact—that, in the Royal Commission of 1948 which considered divorce, there was a minority judgment by one man — Lord Walker, who was the Scottish judge on the commission. He proposed — a proposal that was rejected by everybody else—that it was humbug to maintain that a criminal event, be it adultery, buggery, insanity, cruelty or desertion, had to be identified to justify claiming a decree of divorce. He said that those were surely mere claims—that there was no marriage and that the contract which people hoped would be "until death do us part" had come to an end.
  Oddly enough, it was the English who eventually, without giving credit to the great Lord Walker, entered first into the concept of irretrievable breakdown as the ground for divorce. It was followed some time afterwards by the Scots who, timidly, as the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) rightly said, were not quite willing to go all the way.
  Let us be clear about what happened. Before that step was taken, it was possible to start proceedings for divorce on the day of one's marriage. Indeed, I was involved in a case in which the bridegroom indulged to such an extent at what was called the marriage breakfast that it fell to the best man—perhaps I should call him the better man—to undertake the consummation. What he did not anticipate was that the consummation would take longer than the unconsciousness of the bridegroom.
  The bridegroom immediately said, "That is the end of it. I shall have nothing more to do with you," and it created
  440
  a difficult professional judgment for me as to what to do because he could not divorce on the grounds that the marriage had not been consummated, nor could he sue for nullity because he could not claim that he was incapable of consummating it. However, the law of Scotland, as it usually does, found a way round the difficulty so that justice could be done, and fictional non-consummation was invented for the law.
  It it was all right for the English and Welsh to divorce on the grounds of adultery, buggery, insanity, cruelty or desertion the day after one was married—indeed, on the day on which one was married—until 1969, what is wrong with allowing that now? In Scotland we have never had any time limit, partly, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said, because they did it first, and partly because they underwent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-Super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, the judgment of Solomon. However, let us not forget what that judgment was. The judgment of Solomon was not to divide the baby but to threaten the injustice of dividing the baby so as to give it to the right woman.
  What we have is a compromise, and I hope that it is helpful when I say that all the chess that we have seen between the bishops and the pawns—I must not call the Lord Chancellor a pawn—in another place has been spurious. It is a help in the United Kingdom for us to have two systems of law—to be able to see one against the other—and there has been no difficulty in Scotland.
  Even after we altered the grounds of marriage from the canonical sins — of which adultery required criminal proof in Scotland because it was a canonical offence, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt—we had no lime bar and no difficulty. As I pointed out in an intervention to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), in Scotland the incidence of divorce in the first three to five years of marriage is less than in England.
  Many hon. Members have said that nothing in the Bill protects the institution of marriage. Behind that I have assumed that they mean Christian monogamy. Other hon. Members have said that the possibility of divorce will activate the disintegration of marriage. What has been the Scottish experience?
  Until 1938—extremely unwisely, in my belief, did the Scots allow this House to change it—there were many forms of marriage in Scotland, but they were abolished. There was what we called regular marriage and irregular marriage, and the forms of irregular marriage were many. Essentially, they were that two people lived together and, by habit and repute, were regarded as husband and wife. Anyway, all of us who speak humbug about the nonsense of right and wrong and morality should accept that "Mrs" means mistress; "Mrs. Smith" means that she is the mistress of Mr. Smith. It means nothing else in language, and I am glad to say that in Scotland the habit is still to call people "mistress" rather than "missus".
  As I say, until that day we had irregular marriage, and what was the test of people wanting to live together? It was the fact that they did it, that it lasted and that people recognised it. One may say that it was all very immoral Nevertheless, it lasted. If the test for those who are talking about the institution of marriage is whether the relationship between a man and a woman lasts—and not the plastic kit of whether a church or register office label has been put round it—I claim that the institution of marriage was

  441
  infinitely wounded by making it more difficult to get married than it ever will be by making it easier to get divorced.
  Let us consider the concept of making it more difficult to get divorced. I have appeared in more than 40,000 consistorial cases, so I can claim to know something about the circumstances of married life and divorce. I know of no circumstance in which a person says, "Darling, it has been fun, but I will go now because it is easy to leave." It is never easy to leave; it is loathsome, difficult and frightful to leave, and anybody who talks about a clean break is using language in a sense that I do not understand. One cannot have a clean break between hydrogen and oxygen when they have become water.
  I do not believe that there are any circumstances in which civilising the ending of a contract, which is usually entered into for reasons not understood, is likely to cause people to enter or leave that contract more lightly or wantonly. There are many circumstances involved in a marriage and its break-up that must be considered, but then we come to the financial provisions, and the law of England at present is, in my view, inequitable. To be equitable in the circumstances of two people who were previously married—and who marry again or who do not marry again—is almost impossible. However, there is a glaring inequity in the law of England by which a spouse — be it a wife or husband — may benefit magnificently from the future prosperity of the ex-spouse, a prospect which was never enjoyed during the union, however short or long it was.
  I accept the caution of those who look at the wording of the prospective section 25, which attempts to say, "When the court comes to look at the future financial provisions, it should try to make them fair." If that were all that it said, that provision would be wise. It is right in certain circumstances to take into account the rights and wrongs of conduct. A good person, who behaves well and does well by his family and children, yet is wronged, should not, as in the judgment of Solomon, have the baby divided equally between the sinner and the sinned against. That is not right, and does not appear to be right. It is inequitable. The purpose should be for the court to do its best in the impossible circumstances of division, and to make a fair financial reward.
  I do not want to interrupt into the law of England any longer, save to say this. In Scotland, we find no difficulty with a system of divorce without time limit. The incidence of divorce has nothing to do with whether proceedings start early or late. I do not understand the immorality of having a 12-month period that is supposed to protect the institution of marriage for the sake of the children. If I understand the law of England aright I imagine that, if one leaves a first wife during that first 12 months, and conceives a child by the woman who becomes the second wife, the child can never be legitimised because there was a bar to the marriage in the first 12 months. That is the law in Scotland and I do not know whether it applies in England; but the time limit seems artificial even in those circumstances.
  It is wrong that the sole prop to the family and the institution of marriage should be to force those who enter into it to endure it for 12 months, however right or wrong that is, in the fantasy that if they endure it for 12 months they will agree to endure it for ever. The beam in part I
  442
  is a mote which we have never had in our eye and which, with respect, I suggest that the English law should not have either.
  8.3 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I rise to follow the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) with some sympathy for his concept of unitary standards throughout the United Kingdom. However, I am not sure whether I can follow his reasoning, as, on the one hand, he talks about the humbug of morality, and on the other speaks about the immorality of the one-year bar. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be picking his ground, as most debaters will do, to get his point across.
  Most hon. Members who have spoken have tended to acknowledge that statistics are not helpful because they are not really there.
  As a Northern Ireland Member, I welcome the fact that the Province is mentioned in the Bill, although I am unsure what benefit it will be to us. I have read the Bill, but I am prepared to be informed further of its purposes. For example, I am not sure whether it will be of benefit to those living outside Northern Ireland who seek to have maintenance paid through the Northern Ireland courts, or whether the provisions will add to the number of those in Northern Ireland especially women, who receive supplementary benefit support, but whose husbands are elsewhere. Occasionally the courts demand that these women bring their husbands before the court, even theoretically, so that the money paid in supplementary benefit can be reclaimed. I am therefore not sure what great benefit the Bill will bring to people resident in Northern Ireland.
  Having dealt with that aspect, in view of the time and the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, I shall deal briefly with some of the general principles. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross spoke of legislation affecting the entire kingdom, and people in Northern Ireland see the shadow of the Bill falling across their problems. Although my party has a free vote today, I believe that I reflect the views of a high percentage of the people of Northern Ireland, whether one thinks of them in religious or political terms, who are not enamoured of the general trend in the Bill. Indeed, despite all that has been said, I believe that most of us are not terribly happy with what looks like easy divorce and the consequent hazards in the relationship between former spouses.
  A considerable amount of anecdotal evidence has been cited. It may be said that that is not really evidence, but I suspect that the statistics bandied about are likewise open to debate. Hon. Members on both sides have cited a statistic which should make us pause. We are told that between 40 and 50 per cent. of remarriages also end in divorce. I believe that one of the purposes of law is to educate. We must therefore be careful about the standards that we send out to the country.
  I take the point about regular and irregular contracts. Here I confess my own interest. I believe in Christian monogamy, but I absolutely concede that contracts entered into by non-Christians may be equally binding. I suspect that if one compared the ethos, background and stability of communities one might discover why the divorce rate in Scotland has not spiralled upwards.

  443
  We need a law to guide us in our relationships for at least a further decade until the long-sought inquiry and in-depth examination of the whole question can produce further guidance for the nation. Having read the proceedings in another place, and listened to the debate here, there seems to me to be great concern about rich husbands being milked by vicious young former wives. Perhaps that is just my impression of the purpose in the minds of some supporters of the Bill, but if it is true, we are legislating for a very small number of people and leaving out of the reckoning the far larger number of people who will be adversely affected.
  The pros and cons of the matter have been argued in the debate today. In view of the tenor of the debate in another place, I wish to inject a different note. Emphasis today has been on justice and on justice being seen to be done. I cannot help thinking of the old story about the woman preening herself before a photographer. When she said, "I hope you will do me justice," the photographer looked through the camera and replied, "Madam, it is not justice you need—t is mercy." Often in relationships between men and women there is a place not only for justice but for mercy and forgiveness.
  When I read the report of the proceedings in the other place, I noted that a question was asked about the case when an unfaithful wife bears someone else's child. That is a dispute between law and grace. It is significant that it was a preacher who had to bear that burden and had to learn how to deal with it in his home. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the story, I refer to the Prophet Hosea, whose wife Gomer was unfaithful on two occasions. That record tells us that instead of constantly seeking for our pound of flesh we should, even in such tragic circumstances, emphasise forgiveness and patience and attempt to make the relationship good again.
  I accept the point about drawing out a marriage that has broken down irretrievably. My antipathy to the reduction from three years to one year is not to make life purgatory for the two people who would then have to soldier on—they would not soldier on because they would already be going their separate ways — but because three years gives them longer to think the matter over before they enter into another contract in law. They may do it in another way, but at least it does not encourage them to rush into another partnership within either civil or religious law.
  In an age when people may no longer marry for better and for worse, too many people certainly tend to marry not for long. Therefore, we should encourage them to think through the consequences of their decisions. In that context, we cannot automatically, as some hon. Members have argued, remove conduct from our decisions about the law. We may manage to get out of it in cases of separation and divorce. We may be able to say that if people are civilised and do not call one another names they may go their separate ways and be recognised in law as divorced. However, I guarantee that when it comes down to finance and to business relationships, the ball game is entirely different.
  In that context it cannot be said that one party is as guilty as the other. There must be a balance of evidence. As we are dealing with human nature, anyone with experience of either family problems or judicial cases will know that no matter how the law is devised to help people, it will always break down at that point. We should be
  444
  looking for Utopia if we tried to set aside the conduct clause so that people could make some other financial arrangements.
  I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I have made what I believe to be important points. I sympathised with the Attorney-General when he referred to the problem of exceptional depravity. I understand that, but how can we differentiate conduct in such matters? Sooner or later there are degrees, as there are in the law, and it would be a rarified position if we could revert to the old Greek concept of moderation being a virtue.
  There are some things which are right but which impinge on others, and there are other things which are wrong. I once had a discussion on this point with a lawyer friend, who said that that line of argument was false because as long as there was moderation, there was no problem. I said, "I dare say that is what you plead in defence of your clients. You say, 'Your Worship, my client is a very decent man who has not murdered two people, but only one person, so he is fairly moderate-. We must recognise, although we might not be prepared to admit it, that we are usually ready to say about others, "Some folk are worse than we are." That is what will happen in marriage.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. It may help the House if I say that the first Front Bench spokesman hopes to catch my eye at 9.10 pm.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: I welcome the Bill. We have come a long way in the past few years since the days when so much hinged on the concept of the matrimonial offence, when severe consequences followed to those who had committed a matrimonial offence—loss of custody of children. loss of rights to maintenance and loss of self-esteem. In the old days those consequences followed a finding of guilt. We should all be pleased that divorce is no longer a gladiatorial exercise, with defended divorces now being the exception rather than the rule.
  The proposal to replace the three-year discretion bar with a one-year absolute bar is a sensible and long overdue reform. The proposal will not make divorces easier, nor will it undermine the family. The problem with the three-year discretionary rule was, first, the difference in approach among judges and, secondly, the pain involved for potential petitioners, who had to commit, and often exaggerate in their committing, to paper, the sad aspects of the early part of their marriage. Judges have tended to grant applications for leave to petition in the first three years without closely examining the facts. If we take into account the absurdity in practice of the concepts of exceptional hardship and depravity, we can be sure that the three-year rule was bad and that it should go. A one-year absolute bar is a good idea, which reflects society's view and hope that marriage should be a binding institution not to be entered into lightly, and that it should be given a fair chance to work.
  Part II of the Bill deals with financial relief, and I am pleased that we are discarding the 1973 aim, which was to place the parties in the financial position that they would have occupied had the marriage not broken down. It was an unrealistic and almost unattainable aim that could have

  445
  been attained only in those rare cases where there was a great deal of matrimonial income and capital. We now say that the courts, in deciding whether or how to exercise their financial powers, should have regard to all the circumstances, with first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the marriage who has not reached the age of 18. That is a laudable approach. We must be clear about what we mean by the phrase "first consideration". Do we mean first in time or first in importance? There is a significant difference. I believe that we mean first in importance, but we should say so.
  Two areas are of concern to practitioners in the law. The first is the case of a child who is not a minor but who is dependent either through disability or, more commonly, because he or she is undergoing full-time education. There appears to be no provision for the child who is not a minor but who is dependent. It might be helpful to embrace that child within the terms of the Bill.
  Secondly, there has been some confused and confusing thinking about the concept of a child of the family. Not many people are aware that a child of the family need not be a child of the marriage. One can sympathise with the position of stepfathers who, on divorce, find themselves committed to maintaining children who are not the children of their marriage.
  In exercising financial powers, courts will need to have regard to conduct, if, in the opinion of the court, it would be inequitable to disregard that conduct. We have heard, in the case of Wachtel, about conduct being gross and obvious. There may be some uncertainty about whether "gross and obvious" has the same meaning in clause 3. The introduction of this clause reflects public pressure. In the early years after the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was passed, many husbands strongly felt that they had had what they regarded as an unfair result in their matrimonial cases.
  There are two sides to the argument, and we must achieve a balance. It would be wrong to ignore conduct completely. Part of our trouble is that too many people are not prepared to identify right and wrong when they see it plainly. We must not fall into that trap. Conduct must have some relevance, although we hope that it will be in the exceptional, rather than the ordinary, case. There is another end to the argument. If we go too far down the "conduct" road, we shall return to the bad old days of matrimonial offence. Like so many points in this debate, it is a matter of good judgment and good balance, and I believe that the Bill has it about right.
  In lending some encouragement to the "complete break" principle, the Bill keeps up to date again with contemporary thinking and shows a good development. Obviously, a clean break will not be appropriate where there are dependent children or if a wife is old. Is it not right that a former wife should be generally encouraged to resume, if possible, her earning capacity and to stand as soon as possible on her own feet? Would that not in the long term lead to greater independence and greater self-respect, less wrangling and more harmony?
  There are gaps in the Bill. I am sorry to see a lack of emphasis on reconciliation and conciliation. Section 6 of the 1973 Act required solicitors to give to petitioners the names and addresses of people properly qualified to help effect a reconciliation. That function is not undertaken properly by the legal profession. It adopts a perfunctory
  446
  approach. That is a problem. It would be a good idea if there were some teeth in the Bill on reconciliation. Perhaps the courts could send for the petitioner just before the petition is issued so that, in effect, there could be a compulsory and early reconciliation discussion with the registrar. Something not dissimilar happens when an access summons is issued in many county courts. As soon as the summons for access to a child is issued, many registrars now send for the parents to try to have an early, if not immediate, conciliation meeting.
  There is another small gap in the Bill. I have often wondered why only the petitioner can obtain a decree absolute six weeks after a decree nisi. I can think of no earthly reason why that should not be available to the respondent at the same time.
  We have hopes for the future in matrimonial law. Large numbers in the solicitors' profession who feel concern on the matter have joined the Solicitors Family Law Association, in which the whole emphasis is on a civilised and caring, rather than an adversarial, approach to matrimonial law. Many of us care strongly for the prospect of a single, unified family court. I share the views expressed today that the multiplicity of jurisdictions is not a good idea, and that in the long term a unified family court, with its own family atmosphere, must be a good development. In the long term, divorce law and family law must be dealt with on a civilised and amicable basis. We want to develop a law by which the sting is drawn easily, rather than allowed to poison further, by which the husband and wife are not encouraged to feel bitter and hostile, and the children are not permanently scarred by aggresive access disputes, as has often happened in the past. We want a law by which, with dignity and mutual respect, a divorced couple and their children can look forward with some hope to a new future rather than look back in despair at their past. The Bill is another step on the road to that goal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for the hon. Member's brevity.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: There have been moments of great emotion during this debate. A number of hon. Members have spoken feelingly about their experiences and brought them to bear on this subject. That is understandable and right. The incidence of divorce is growing and is reflected, lamentably, in the House. The importance of the debate touches not just those who have been affected but those who are worried about the stability of marriage and who are working to see that our laws maintain the strength of family life.
  The Government have claimed that this is an urgent matter, although it is five years of Government life since the Bill was first presented. In bringing the Bill forward, whether deliberately or inadvertantly — I presume the latter—the Government are perceived as the champions and representatives of a strong lobbying group set up to change the divorce laws to reduce the maintenance payments made to many ex-wives, the so-called "alimony drones" who could otherwise support themselves. I hope that the Government will listen to the voices of the many hon. Members who want to improve, rather than oppose, the Bill.
  I am pleased that the Government have recognised the possibilities of the special procedure for discussing the Bill

  447
  before again debating it on the Floor of the House. It is especially appropriate to follow that procedure in this suject because there are few divorced wives in the House of Commons, let alone in the Government. Divorced wives are the people who are most at risk of being adversely affected by the Bill.
  The Bill should be the subject not of party politics, but of maximum scrutiny, and that is how the Social Democratic party is approaching the Bill. The most striking fact about this matter is the lack of research, accurate figures and up-to-date information about the level and frequency of maintenance payments and about the different problems faced by people in different parts of the country and within different income levels.
  There is no statistical evidence of any sort which enables us to take an informed view on how much maintenance is being paid and by whom. Information on the different sorts of maintenance orders that are being imposed by the courts is not being collected by the Lord Chancellor's office, the Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Security. In a sense, we are legislating in the dark. No attempt has been made to consider effective ways of improving the enforcement of maintenance, and what good to an ex-wife or child is maintenance that is never paid? It is an issue that comes before hon. Members in their constituencies with great frequency.
  One of the most important matters that the Bill should provide for is an increase in the information that is available to the courts on the cost of maintaining a child before they make financial provision orders in respect of children. Directions should be given to the courts to have regard to the information subsequently made available to them. Such information should include facts obtained from family expenditure surveys and from a number of independent organisations that have access to the best information that appears at the time to be available.
  Without that information, many of the decisions made by the courts will be determined by the effectiveness of the advocates in courts and the emotions of those involved rather than on accurate facts. We feel that the provision of more information should be a fundamental objective and requirement of the Bill. Research should be carried out on a proper basis so as to provide information for the courts and to ascertain the effect of making various orders on the parties to matrimonial proceedings and their children.
  Some of the matters that the Bill proposes to change have clearly aroused more controversy than others. I shall briefly make the alliance's views known on the major ones. Part I of the Bill proposes to end the rule that a divorce petition may not be presented within three years of marriage other than in cases of exceptional depravity or exceptional hardship, so as to provide an absolute bar on divorce proceedings until a couple have been married for one year.
  I must confess—I say this in part as a Scot—that I do not see the logic in any particular time bar. In many instances the realisation that the marriage has been a mistake, for whatever reason, comes early in its existence. If the principle of irretrievable breakdown is to be accepted as the only ground for divorce, surely that principle should operate at any stage. The very young may recognise quickly that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and sometimes this may be realised by the very elderly who enter a second marriage. The elderly, too, may
  448
  quickly realise that the second marriage has not lived up to their experience or their expectation of marriage. They, too, should be free from the incubus of the waiting year.
  Part II has been the centre of the debate. It will no longer be a statutory objective to seek, so far as is practicable, to place the parties in divorce in the financial position in which they would have been if the marriage had not broken down.
  Among the policy objectives of the Bill is the admirable one that the welfare of children under the age of 18 should be the first consideration. However, on its own, the clause which provides for this is mere rhetoric unless it is backed up by more detailed provisions. How are the courts to assess child support when, as I have said, there is a need for more information? In its report the Law Commission stated:
  "Administrative steps should be taken to ensure that the courts have adequate and reliable information about the current costs of maintaining children."
  The Bill must be amended to lay down some clear criteria for assessing maintenance.
  The Bill seeks to implement the principle that the courts should place greater emphasis on both parties becoming self-sufficient. That objective may be appropriate for childless marriages of short duration, and it is such marriages that have been held up as examples of the supposed unfairness of the present law. They are, however, the minority of divorces, and the courts already take the view that where there are no children and both parties are still young after a short marriage, the wife should not rely on maintenance.
  In effect, the law is being changed for all divorces to accommodate a tiny minority. The principle of self-sufficiency is inappropriate where there are dependent children because of the effect that child care responsibilities have on the earning capacity of the custodial parent. The principle of self-sufficiency is grossly unfair where one parent has forgone many years of career advancement in order to care for a family.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the sense that the hon. Gentleman describes, the Bill will benefit a minority. If he is concerned about women who devote many years of their life to bringing up their children and, at a relatively advanced age can no longer maintain themselves, surely he is not reading the Bill in a way that suggests that those women would be likely to be prejudiced. It is clear on the face of the Bill that the courts, among other things, will have to consider the earning capacity of the wife of the marriage. If the wife is a lady in her late 50s or early 60s 'who has not worked for many years because she has cared for her home and children, the Bill cannot possibly be said to constitute a threat to her security. I am wondering whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to take that on board.
  Mr. Maclennan: I acknowledge to some extent the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument. In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), I directed attention to several criteria in the Bill. However, the Bill rather leaves it to the courts to pick and choose the criteria that they consider to be appropriate. That choice could easily turn on subjective judgments. It is reasonable to raise on Second Reading the philosophy behind the Bill's provisions and the objectives that it is seeking to achieve. For the reasons that I have given, the principle of self-sufficiency could be unfair.

  449
  A highly controversial issue is the conduct of the parties. A substantial change in emphasis is proposed from the wording of the 1973 Act. I accept that the alteration is probably not intended to give new prominence to conduct in matrimonial breakdown, but the Bill is likely to be seen as a signal to the courts to pay much greater regard to matrimonial conduct than they have been inclined to do in the past 10 years. There has been increased public pressure recently for the courts to give more weight to that factor in financial proceedings relating to divorce.
  The idea that conduct is relevant in matrimonial proceedings is a hangover from ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the concept of matrimonial offence. The courts should not allow consideration of the conduct of a party who has dependent children to influence it to make any order that, in effect, would impose a lower standard of living on that party than would otherwise be the result, so long as any such children are living with him or her. I recognise that there are some cases where the resources of the family have been frittered away through the behaviour of a wastrel spouse.
  There are cases in which conduct has undoubtedly to be considered. The wording of the relevant provisions as they stand involves the risk of exacerbating the bitterness of matrimonial disputes at a time when there is pressure to increase it. If that happens, the cost of matrimonial proceedings and the burden on the legal aid fund are likely substantially to increase. That will be the result of too much emphasis being placed on conduct.
  The Attorney-General: I am a little concerned about the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Bill represents in some respects a substantial change from the 1973 Act. The 1973 Act was much wider in its application than the Bill. It set out to exercise powers — there were various guidelines—
  "so … as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to their conduct, just to do so, in the financial position in which they would have been".
  That does not seem to have any of the limitations of the provisions that are set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Maclennan: The learned Attorney-General may well be right. I would not seek to quarrel with him at this hour, when a number of hon. Members still wish to contribute to the debate. I shall consider with great attention what he has said.
  I alluded earlier to the argument that the Bill is a charter for middle-class men. Perhaps the reasons for that type of criticism revolve around the provisions in the Bill that are seen to encourage a clean break. Particular care has to be taken with the final wording of the Bill's provisions to deal with that. There is major concern over lone parents or older women whose once-dependent children have now grown up. The small amount of research that has been carried out suggests that only about 6 per cent. of divorced women rely on maintenance payments for income 10 years after the divorce. The meal ticket for life seems to be a myth. If a clean break clause is to be included, it must recognise the reality of the position of a woman attempting to obtain work after giving up the best studying years of her life to bring up a family.
  Like almost all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I regret the fact that the Government have once
  450
  again postponed acting on the recommendations of the Finer committee. It is too long since those proposals were made. It was disturbing to hear the Attorney-General say that it was primarily the inability of the Government to come to terms with the resource implications that was holding up the implementation of a policy that he seemed to imply was desirable.
  After 10 years, can the Attorney-General, or the Solicitor-General, give us any outline of the resource implications of implementing the Finer recommendations? Could he confirm that the Government would wish to introduce a family court, but that the money is not available at present? Even that would be a step forward.
  Another theme of the debate has been the desirability of including proper conciliation procedures as part of the judicial process. Could we hear something more about that?
  8.42 pm
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I find myself in great difficulty over the Bill. When we heard that we were to debate the Bill today, I suspected that other hon. Members on both sides of the House would worry, like me, about various aspects of the Bill. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General must be feeling somewhat concerned about the weight and sincerity of the feelings of great anxiety which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think particular of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Rowe) and the extremely moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) — to take examples only from the Government Benches.
  I appreciate that the present law concerning the prohibition on petitions for divorce could justifiably be called intolerable, as it lends itself to different interpretations in different courts and is worded in such a way as to suggest—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—that a certain amount of cruelty and suffering is perfectly tolerable. That is quite unacceptable. Nevertheless, if the law of the land permitted someone to be legally married for the second time within 18 months of his first legal marriage, that would give a signal that the state no longer holds that marriage, in principle, should be permanent. That is one of the main causes for my anxiety about the Bill.
  I agree with some of the provisions in the Bill, but—whatever the Law Commission may say, and in spite of all that my right hon. and learned Friend has said—I cannot eradicate from my mind a conviction that clause 1 will weaken marriage. Every few years, Parliament seems to chip away a bit more at the institution of marriage. Perhaps, instead of making divorce easier and easier, we might consider making it more difficult to get married. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) does not believe that easier divorce procedures make for more divorces. If that is the case, why has the divorce rate risen more and more steeply as divorce has become easier and easier? In 1981, there were 146,000 divorces in England and Wales. That must be compared with 127,000 in 1976, 74,000 in 1971 and 25,000 in 1961. Other factors may be involved, but the figures certainly do not show that making divorce easier does not lead to more divorces.
  The hon. Member for Ipswich also complained about marriages that drag on and on painfully over the years. He would be wrong in imagining that that happens in every

  451
  case where two people are not necessarily compatible. During the debates on the Divorce Reform Bill 1969, a very senior hon. Member told me why he was worried about that Bill. He said that all marriages go through difficult times, and that that is natural. He said that his own marriage had hit stormy waters and could easily have ended in divorce but that he and his wife had come through it, and were now happier than ever. It is wrong to assume that large numbers of middle-aged people are groaning under the yoke of unhappy marriages and that divorce is inevitably better.
  I am very concerned about what we are doing. The message of the Bill is that marriage is not for ever—it is not even for three years—it is for one year. After that time, one is free to seek a divorce. That is the gravamen of my charge.
  On the one hand, there are those who say that, as the divorce figures are rising, we should make it easier. I have great sympathy with those who have to face divorce. I can envisage the deeply unhappy situations that exist. I know from friends a little about the cruel hurt which a divorce inflicts. Many people leap into a divorce without any comprehension of the misery that it will cause them. People have said, "If I had only known how dreadful this would be, I would have tried again." However, once one has taken that road, pride and other influences come into play, and one goes ahead. Parliament has no business to encourage divorce. It is an entirely tenable view, however, that, since it is happening anyway, we should make it easier.
  On the other hand, if the law tells people that marriageo is not expected to be a contract for life, people will tend to act on that view. We might as well change the marriage service, altering the words from, "till death us do part," to, "until June 1985," or whatever the date might be.
  It is a pity that the law ever spelt out a time limit. I would prefer the law to refer only to when the marriage has broken down. Setting a time limit—especially such a short time limit as one year—is highly dangerous. I understand the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). Earlier in the debate it was suggested that since Scotland has no time limit, it is the mecca for those who wish to get a quick divorce even before a year of marriage. It could be that people might flood up to Scotland, as if to Gretna Green in reverse, in order to get a quick divorce. However, what worries me is setting a time limit in the law. Where is the sense in standing in front of an altar and saying "till death us do part" when one knows jolly well that the marriage might last only a year? Making such a provision in the law is dangerous.
  Mr. Nicholls: If my hon. Friend wants to make the Christian contract of marriage the basis of the state's attitude to marriage, why have three years? Why not say, "There shall be no divorce"? Although it would be appalling, it would at least be consistent.
  Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend must recognise that there is a close connection between the state and the Church. We must not shrug it off in that way. It must be dangerous to publicise the fact that marriage might last only one year. I am aware that couples will have to meet the same grounds for divorce. They are not hard. I agree with the arguments about exceptional hardship and depravity. I have read what the Law Commission has said.
  452
  However, clever people sometimes do very silly things. None of the information alters the fact that, if the Bill is passed, Parliament will weaken the bond of marriage and discourage those who might have tried again after the first quarrel from trying. The Law Commission has said that the difficulty of predicting the effect of any change in the law on public attitudes casts a heavy onus on those who seek to justify reform. We have not had that justification. Divorce now costs the state more than £1 billion a year. The state wastes an awful lot of money on divorce. The money could be put to much better use. Divorce is a tragedy and involves human agony but we should not forget that we are pouring money down the drain on divorce.
  I share the disappointment of other right hon. and hon. Members that there is nothing in the Bill about reconciliation. I was worried by my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to an intervention on that point. He did not seem to be serious about reconciliation, nor was he clear about when or if it would start. The United Kingdom has the highest divorce rate in western Europe. Although the Bill says that the welfare of children should be the first consideration, I see no such provision in it. The Bill's cost has not been evaluated. Its insistence on the financial self-sufficiency of both parties has worrying implications.
  It has been said that it would be sensible to encourage women who have experienced divorce to sever the ties, stand on their own feet and start working for themselves again. The Bill will result in many women feeling that they dare not give up time to look after their children and lose their connection with their profession, trade or training, as they might need it in due course. Mothers should be encouraged to stay in the home when their children need them if they so wish. After a divorce, a mother might well have to obtain employment immediately. That is when her children will miss her most. I hold no brief for a woman who callously walks out on a man after perhaps only two or three years of marriage and expects him to keep her for the rest of her life. However, are there really many such women? It would be unfortunate if the law were changed to penalise such women at the expense of innocent and worthy women.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross said that it was never right for a woman to benefit from her husband's income being enhanced after a divorce. What about the woman who has worked to keep the home together and to bring up the children while her husband has studied to become, say, a doctor? We all know of women who have subjected themselves to hard labour to ensure that their husbands pass examinations and get on in their careers. My hon. and learned Friend says that she should not benefit if there is a divorce and he goes on to achieve success. I am not worried about the avaricious woman who does not deserve maintenance for life, but I am worried about the woman who deserves it. In spite of what is being said, I am not sure that the Bill will ensure that she gets it.
  Clause 2 removes the aim governing the provision of maintenance—to maintain the parties in the financial position that they would have enjoyed had the marriage not broken down. What is to be put in its place? The Bill does not say. Clause 3, the clean break clause, has led The Times to say in a leader today:
  "In reality, however, the clean break can only rarely be accomplished without causing injustice to the wife … The B ill wholly fails to face this problem."

  453
  I agree. Lord Denning has said that until now the divorce law has always protected the wife but that this Bill has no such safeguards. We are told nothing about reconciliation and we all regret the lack of implementation of the Finer report. No provision is made to achieve the welfare of children. The Bill proposes far-reaching changes in maintenance provision, although the Law Commission report 112 says:
  "There is a complete lack of factual evidence about the operation of the present law governing maintenance."
  The results of several other highly relevant inquiries which the Law Commission has called for are not yet available. Why the rush? The cost of the proposed changes to maintenance has not been evaluated. We are rushing into legislation the ground for which has not been properly prepared. In their entirely laudable effort to alleviate one lot of suffering, the Government are rushing us into a new lot. There will have to be more legislation if the Bill is passed. I cannot find it in my heart to vote for the Bill. However, there are parts of it that I understand and agree with. I cannot therefore vote against it. I shall abstain.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Having listened to her speech, I thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) would vote against the Bill, and I am disappointed that she has decided to abstain.
  This is the first time that I have spoken in the House on a Bill on divorce. I have always taken the view that, as I believe in the traditional concept of marriage—one man and one woman for life—I do not want to take part in anything which in any way condones or pushes on to other people my concept of what a marriage should be. This is something for individuals to decide.
  Nevertheless, for the first time I find myself speaking in a debate such as this because I do not think that we can avoid talking about the consequences of legislation passed by the House. One of the things that I most frequently have to deal with in my constituency surgeries is the consequences of broken marriages — the tenancy of homes, people marrying again and coming along to argue the injustice of the settlement that they have suffered, the problem of access to children, and the belief that solicitors have failed them. They want to know whether there is something that Members of Parliament can do to help, but there is not. We are faced with a Bill that is ill-considered, rushed forward and mainly a charter for middle-aged middle-class men seeking to avoid some of the responsibilities that they took on when they were young. I say that particularly with regard to part II.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Edgbaston that if we are to have a criterion for divorce it should be irretrievable breakdown, but once one has conceded the principle, whether it is one year, two years, 10 years or 15 years before one goes to the courts, there is still the problem of judgment and degree, into which I do not wish to go this evening.
  The hon. Lady said that the legislation of 1973 had increased the number of divorces. We should not necessarily look at the number of divorces, but should look at the number of marriage breakdowns, which is different. A great number of marriages have broken down where the parties have taken up different relationships, but the cases
  454
  never come to court, for a variety of different reasons—sometimes because of the expense, sometimes because they cannot be bothered and sometimes because they have different criteria for and attitudes to morality than the rest of us.
  There are many reasons for the increasing breakdown in marriage, and we do not have to look at the statute book for reasons for the whole host of changes that have taken place in our society. There are economic matters, the breakdown, to some extent, of the family and the breakdown of the customary codes of conduct which have guided these islands for centuries and which are now increasingly subjected to criticism and non-acceptance. There is the terrible fear that people have, "Oh hell, we are all going to be blown to bits anyway." These criteria are different, but they have not arisen because of the existence of legislation.
  There is a great injustice in the Bill. Before I go on to deal with that, I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) that I found strange his concept of male parenthood and when the father starts to relate to the child. I believe that the father starts relating to the child as soon as he knows that it has been conceived. Although some would agree with my hon. Friend, many would disagree with his interpretation of when male parenthood starts as an emotional matter.
  I shall deal specifically with the position of the woman who is divorced from her husband and is entitled to maintenance. We should all admit that there can never be a clean break in divorce. When people have been so closely united, there are bound to be fragments, wounds and splinters for both parties, whatever has happened. I do not believe in the "meal ticket for life" theory, even if women get maintenance. We have heard the figures of the number of women who exist solely on maintenance, but we all know from our experience of the number of women who have to go for supplementary benefit or have to take up part-time, often low-paid, jobs, to eke out their money after divorce.
  The basic justice of the situation should appeal to the House. After a woman has given her life, and perhaps her career—we cannot judge when a vocation is a career—to marry and raise a family, she is entitled, for her commitment and work and what she has put in, to be recognised. That should be recognised in the legislation, irrespective of whether the husband becomes successful, becomes a multimillionaire, or remains in an ordinary job.
  By putting criteria into the hands of the judge in this legislation we are allowing the judge to make specific subjective decisions about cases of which often he does not know the background to enable him to reach a reasonable conclusion. Let me give an example. Let me take the case of someone who graduated about the same time as I did, got married, trained as a teacher, started a family and had three or four children. Twenty years later, the children are grown up, the last one has gone to university, and there is a divorce. The couple go to a judge, who looks at the woman and says, "Very reasonable. You are 40 to 45 years old, pretty, and you will possibly get married again. You have a good chance of getting a job." That woman, who has spent 10 or 15 years out of teaching, has no chance of getting a job. Her skills and her methods are outdated. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that a woman should be given further training or have her position enhanced. The same is true of other jobs. A shorthand typist can get

  455
  married, raise a family, and then have to come back to the world of word processors and computer technology. What chance has she?
  The Bill does not say how a woman can enhance her income. There is a basic injustice to the woman throughout the Bill. In my view, that is wrong. We should reject the Bill because of what is contained in part II. It is unjust and unfair, and it is wrong for this male-dominated assembly to pass legislation of this nature against the majority of the citizens of this country.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Keith Best (Ynys MÔn): In the short time that is available to me, may I say to my regret, unlike many hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, that I do not speak with personal knowledge of marriage and children? I trust that I shall not be counted as advertising, but I hope that one day I shall have a family—that is, if 10 years practising as a lawyer in the matrimonial courts have not put me off it altogether. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is too expensive for me, in view of some of her ideas about the Bill. We are told that a housewife now does work to the equivalent of £227 a week, so perhaps I cannot afford to marry.
  This Bill seeks to introduce a greater sense of fairness and justice into a tortuous part of the law, where in many cases it is impossible to achieve total fairness to the satisfaction of both parties. Until one acknowledges that, one cannot grasp the gravamen of the Bill and its purpose. One must also accept that marriage is a civil contract. However much one may wish that it were only a matter of religion—I know that some hon. Members think that that is the right course—the fact remains that it is right for the law to intervene, because marriage is a civil contract and it involves civil obligations. That is why it is right for conduct to remain a part of the financial consequences of divorce even though, since the 1969 legislation, we have had the concept of the no-fault divorce on the basis only of irretrievable breakdown. The public believe that there is unfairness, and indeed there is.
  Every hon. Member will have received a volume of correspondence from people who see an unfairness. Many of those may be ill-advised in their conclusion. They may see unfairness where in reality none exists. We must understand that in the tragedy of divorce people are seldom able to take a disinterested view of that awful experience. Of course they are partisan and express their views in that way. There is a perception of unfairness. It was acknowledged by the Law Commission and that is why it is right to have this Bill. The perception and the reality of unfairness is with the existing law, so we must be advocates of change, but change in the right direction.
  I do not want to see a return to the old concept of fault in divorce. The Bill does not lead us down that road. It merely acknowledges, in far more restrictive terms than the previous legislation of 1969 and 1973, that conduct should be considered. It is much more restrictive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was good enough to agree with me when I said in an intervention that, whereas the 1973 legislation requires a court to have regard to the conduct of both parties with no qualification—although the courts have put their own qualification of "obvious and gross" on that—the Bill starts with a limitation by saying that conduct should be considered
  456
  only where, in the opinion of the court, it would be inequitable to disregard it. That is a step in the right direction.
  Many matters will come before the Committee and will be debated on the Floor of the House when the Bill returns for its Report stage. There are many matters about which I would have wished to speak but I shall mention just one—conciliation. I accept that the Bill may not be the right vehicle for conciliation, which is, after all, effectively a procedural matter. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall see conciliation become an integral part of our divorce reform. It is so important that people should settle their differences as amicably as possible. There is no doubt that adversarial contest in divorce over children and finance can only lead to greater hardship.
  Unfortunately, it is perhaps inevitable that many red herrings have been raised. Many fears have been expressed which do not really exist. Many hares have been brought out but I believe that they will run back into their lairs and that at the end of the day we shall have a piece of legislation of which the House can be proud.
  9.12 pm
  Ms. Jo Richardson: It is appropriate that we should be discussing the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill today, because yesterday we were discussing low pay and poverty and much of the Bill is about the poverty of families and one-parent families.
  Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): Rubbish.
  Ms. Richardson: I hope to disprove that.
  This may be dubbed the "Divorce Bill" in the public mind, but it is much more about maintenance. That is revealed by the large number of speeches that have been made putting both sides of the argument. It has clearly been worrying everyone.
  I still do not have any firm views about the automatic right to petition for divorce after a year of marriage. I shall be able to make up my mind in the course of the Committee stage, although I intend to vote against the Bill tonight. I was tempted by the falling in love and marriage of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). They both seem to be in favour of having no time limit at all. I found their arguments very persuasive.
  However, like other hon. Members, I shall concentrate my remarks on part II. The Bill removes the aim of placing both parties in the financial position that they would have been in if the marriage had not broken down, but it does not replace it with anything else. It empowers the court to dismiss outright an application for maintenance and requires it to consider whether it would be appropriate for payments to be made for a limited period
  "to enable the party in whose favour the order is made to adjust without undue hardship."
  As many hon. Members have said, the Bill also reintroduces—and it is a reintroduction—the concept, of conduct. That concept has always been there, but in the past few years it has not basically been used or brought into play. It is linked to the payment of maintenance. When I listened, in particular, to Conservative Members talking about conduct, it occurred to be that it was all very well to apportion blame to one or other, or both of the partners, but that it was the children who would suffer. Apparently,

  457
  the Bill's stated aim is that the welfare of the children is paramount. Therefore, it would be a retrograde step if we were to reintroduce the question of conduct.
  The supposed aim of the Bill is to give priority to the welfare of the children, but I cannot see how it achieves that. It really contains only a very bland statement of support for children. It then concentrates on spouses. As a result of the Bill, the children of many one-parent families could be worse off. If the Bill's principal aim had been the welfare of children, no hon. Member would have been keener to support it than me. I have always believed that there should be greater state and community support for children. I am sure that hon. Members know that I have compaigned for many years, both in the House and within my party, for increased child support. We, as a society, should consider child support in a much more meaningful and generous way. However, search as may, I cannot find much about that in the Bill.
  There is no real attempt to plug the gap left by the removal of the duty of the courts to see that the children do not suffer financially from the divorce. The Law Commission recommended that the courts should be given information about the cost of maintaining a child, but there is nothing in the Bill about that. Thus, there are no real criteria for deciding how to divide the liability for maintaining a child between the partners.
  The Bill essentially involves reducing the right to maintenance of the parent who is the carer of the children, and tips the balance towards the non-custodial parent. That must mean less support for the children of a first marriage. The whole Bill is based on the false image of the divorced woman being an alimony drone, and indeed other hon. Members have referred to that. That woman is seen as someone who is lazy, unwilling to work and lying around wanting a meal ticket for life, but in real life that is not so in other than a very small number of cases. The situation is much more complex than that. To try to divide the Bill into drones and non-drones is to deal with the matter wrongly.
  I deal next with the care of children and the ability of the caring or custodial parent to stand on her own feet. I say "her" because it is usually the woman who is the caring parent. Reference has been made to the minimal study by the centre of socio-legal studies at Oxford. We would all agree that much more research needs to be done. Indeed, I do not know why it has not been done. So much research is done these days into much more obscure subjects, that good research on this subject is surely warranted. The study revealed some interesting things. Of the sample which it took of those who were dependent upon maintenance, half received under £10 per week, a quarter received between £10 and £20 per week and a quarter received over £20 per week. Many of them had more than one child.
  Research done by the National Foster Care Campaign shows that it would cost a parent in the provinces £23·87 per week to care for a child of under four, and in London it would cost £26·95 per week. The amounts increase gradually until for a youngster aged 16 to 18 it would cost in the provinces over £45 per week and in London £53 per week. When we compare those figures with the paltry levels of maintenance, we can see that if someone has to depend upon average maintenance it is no meal ticket for life. These figures do not take account of any contribution
  458
  towards the living costs of the custodial parent. Therefore, I do not believe that the Bill is about helping children, as it should be and as it states it is. It is about material support for the first family. Therefore, it is about the money for the caring parent.
  It has been said that we should be thinking about other provisions which would give women the possibility of standing on their own feet in a real way. I would support amendments which would contribute towards better training, retraining and educational facilities to enable women to stand on their own feet and earn a decent living. The majority of divorced mothers whom I know have great difficulty in finding a job paying more than a very small wage. The jobs they are able to take have to fit in with their responsibilities towards the children for whom they are caring. Simply to say glibly, as has been said by many people, though not during the debate, that this is an opportunity to make women financially independent, is not to face reality. These women are deprived by divorce of support from their husbands and told, "Stand on your own feet and do not rely on me."
  The House will know that I am keen to extend the whole area of women's equality and that I am interested in progressing towards the financial independence of women, including financial independence within the family. We must provide the climate and make the reforms to bring that about before we simply cut off poorer women from the only support that they can receive.
  I should like to give one example of how women are trying to retrain themselves in situations like this. As we all know, we have skillcentres, some of which are running TOPs courses in manual trades. It has been mentioned in the House that there is one in Deptford, which borders the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). I accompanied them when they went to the Department of Employment recently to try to persuade it to allow the two boroughs to provide, at their expense, creche facilities at the skill-centre for the women who wanted to train in those manual trades. The matter is not yet resolved. The boroughs are willing to pay, but the Department is not willing to contribute a penny.
  We are told that that is partly because the Manpower Services Commission must be run on a commercial basis, but it is also partly because the Minister has suggested that it would be unfair to give women the impression that because there were creche facilities at skillcentres there would be creche facilities when they eventually worked. If we are not even willing to try to help women to retrain and gain a skill, how can we expect them to stand on their own feet? The House has tonight regarded the matter with the utmost seriousness but I honestly wish that it would take more seriously the difficulties of low-paid women — who are mainly married women — who suffer so badly.
  The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) mentioned one other category of women. She is an old opponent of mine—indeed, she opposed me in Barking at the 1979 general election. She referred to the older woman whose children have left home. Such a woman may have been a support to her husband. She may have no skills and may never have worked. I know women who have always remained at home — not simply because they wished to, but because their husbands expected them to do so. Their husbands wanted them to be there, wanted

  459
  them to put their dinner on the table or to entertain their business friends. Even without children, to be cut off from any support—when she may have contributed to the upkeep of her home through her work there-is a cruel act.
  The House should take another factor into account. The first wife will never become a widow. If the husband marries again, the second wife becomes the widow and obtains widow's benefits. The first wife does not receive the widow's pension, nor does she in any way benefit from the husband's occupational pension—that will go to the second wife. I understand from reading Hansard of another place that the question of occupational pensions was raised in the debate there and that the Lord Chancellor promised to consider the matter. The Bill ignores the fact that many women are not adequately trained and have not had opportunities to get themselves off the ground or to stand on their own feet.
  I hope that the House will look carefully at the reintroduction of the question of conduct. That will bring back all the bitterness that we thought had disappeared. Divorce is a bitter matter, and to introduce conduct will be to return to the old battleground of accusation. I can remember—although not from personal experience—the days when detectives were employed. That was a common occurrence. They were employed to spy on a partner of the marriage and to report on his or her conduct. Surely we do not want to return to that terrible practice. I hope that we shall dispose of the question of conduct in our consideration of this difficult matter. The higher legal costs that may fall upon most parties to a divorce, and the increasing burden on legal aid, should be examined.
  The Bill omits a number of matters that should have been taken into account and to which hon. Members have referred. The question of family courts is not properly covered. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Cathie) mentioned the Finer report. While listening to him I was struck by the fact that, at the end of this month, it will be 10 years since I became a Member of Parliament. In that time the Finer report has come up in one debate or another almost every year, yet we are no further forward in achieving its aims. Progress must be made in establishing family courts.
  Much more thought should be given to conciliation services. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said about the experiment in his constituency. We should focus on the crucial and central point of child support.
  I do not say in a broad brush way that all second wives are wrong and that all first wives are right. Of course there are difficulties, and there is often a lack of financial support when there are two families. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that we should consider a non-means-tested benefit for people in that situation, and also greatly increased child support.
  After the careful thought given to the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), it is a pity that these matters have not been taken into account and that the House is considering this Bill rather than a child support Bill, which I believe would have commanded support from both sides of the House.
  A number of organisations which are known to all hon. Members have opposed the Bill vigorously. These include the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Council for
  460
  One Parent Families, Gingerbread and the Married Women's Association, among whose patrons are a large number of Members on both sides of the House.
  Although Conservative Members have a free vote, the Government of course support the Bill. The Opposition have a free vote, but the Labour party is opposed to the Bill. The women's organisation in the Labour party has expressed concern about the Bill since the initiation of its consideration. The national executive of the Labour party took the position that it was opposed to the Bill.
  The Bill has emerged as the result of a powerful, well-organised and well-financed lobby of wealthy middle-class men. The cost of making life a little easier for this small elite will be paid for by the 392,000 divorced women who are bringing up families on supplementary benefit. The Bill is loosely drafted, on what I believe to be inadequate information. It should be remembered that 1,500,000 individuals are living in one-parent families, the majority headed by women, of which a high proportion are living on, or near, the poverty line. The Bill does nothing to improve their lot. If it had, I should have been the first into the Lobby to support it. As it is, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in opposing the Bill.
  9.35 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): We have had a debate of absorbing interest. That is not surprising, because the Bill, although limited in its extent and scope, bears on the institutions of marriage and the family. It is common ground — this has been made absolutely clear by hon. Members in all parts of the House—that the family and marriage are seen to be at the centre of the society in which we live and move and have our being.
  Many hon. Members have spoken to that effect, including my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), and the Law Commission has made that clear. This has, therefore, been an important and impressive debate.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and others chided the Government for not introducing a grand resettlement of our matrimonial law and complained that the Bill was narrow in scope. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) gave the answer to that when he said that we should not fall into the old trap of letting the best be the enemy of the good. The Bill cannot do everything. Let us deal with it on its merits; the hon. Gentlemen's speech went into its merits at length and I was pleased by the great extent to which he approved of it.
  I was moved, as all hon. Members must have been, by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). He said that he could not support the Bill because it did not do anything to meet the difficulties of his own position, with which all who heard his speech must sympathise. My hon. Friend should appreciate that no Bill can do everything. I hope that he will examine it on the merits of the policies which it addresses. If he will refer the questions of costs about which he spoke to the Attorney-General, they will be investigated. However, I ask my hon. Friend in all sincerity to examine the narrow scope of the Bill, not to dismiss the aims which it seeks to achieve, limited though they are, to see whether they constitute something that is in need of remedy and reform and whether there is good in the Bill. I hope that he will support it.

  461
  I must correct what the hon. Member for Barking said about Conservative Members being on a free vote tonight. That is not the case, and my right hon. and learned Friend made clear in his opening speech what the Patronage Secretary had authorised him to say in regard to the Report stage on issues of conscience.
  Although we agree that marriage and the family are the foundation of our society, the trouble is that marriages break down and families are split up, and then the law must deal with the pieces. It must deal with them by enabling a legal marriage to be ended when it has ceased to be a living one, and it must provide for the consequences of doing just that.
  I strongly agree with those who say that we must not make the ending of a marriage in law so easy that we weaken marriage as an institution, something to slip into and out of like a suit. I agree, too, with those who say that we must be careful not to send gratuitously a signal that marriage matters less these days; that was very much the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).
  When it comes to the consequences — to put it brutally, to the dividing up of the spoils, which all too often include the children—I agree with those who say that, however it is done—and it must be done by the courts; it cannot be done by anybody else, save by agreement by the parties—let it be done fairly and in the interests of the family as an institution so that one's ordinary sense of justice is not offended.
  It is easy enough to put it that way, and most of us would say that that is what we look for in our divorce law, but it is a good deal more difficult to secure that effect self-evidently in the language of legislation. One is faced with the old dilemma—we meet it often in legislation—of how to balance the need for certainty, clarity and absence of doubt against the need to secure flexibility so that we do not tie the hands of the judges in this jurisdiction. A number of hon. Members spoke of the infinite variety of circumstances that face anybody who deals with the divorce jurisdiction. One case is not like another, so one must allow for flexibility. One cannot satisfactorily serve both those ends; one must compromise.
  We have been advised, and it is apparent, that two areas of our law need improving, go wide of the objective that we want to see served and work harmfully. The Bill was introduced because of that.
  Before I deal with parts I and II, which are the main sources of controversy, I shall deal with one or two details. I am sorry that we have not been able to come forward with much more information about our proposals for conciliation and monitoring the effects of the family provisions of matrimonial law, for research and for some other matters that have been mentioned. The Attorney-General gave information at the beginning of the debate about work that is proceeding. We all wish that it could go further, and that there were more resources. I am only sorry that that is not so. However, the picture is brighter than it used to be.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked to what extent the Bill would affect the law in Northern Ireland. Clause 41 is the only provision that affects Northern Ireland, and will enable persons awarded maintenance in a convention country, following divorce or annulment overseas, in or outside a convention country,
  462
  to bring proceedings in Northern Ireland for recovery of maintenance. A convention country is one to which the United Nations convention on the recovery of maintenance applies. Part III may be copied in due course for Northern Ireland, by an Order in Council.
  We all know the provisions of part I, so I shall not weary the House by repeating them. The issue is whether to continue with a three-year time bar on the presentation of a petition for divorce but have a discretionary bar that will allow petitioners to get round it if the court is shown evidence of exceptional depravity in the spouse, or that there will be exceptional hardship to the petitioner if the divorce cannot be granted earlier. That bar can be overcome if the petitioner establishes either of those things and claims the discretion of the court.
  Will that time bar remain, will it fall sooner, or will it be absolute? What is the result to be? The Law Commission considered the matter carefully and made a recommendation based on the harm caused by the present arrangements. When one applies for the discretion of the court, all the dirt must be raked up. In almost every case, lawyers advise their clients to rake up as much dirt and evidence of depravity as possible, and a lot that can be additionally imagined, in order to secure the court's discretion.
  All hon. Members recognise that that is the foundation of the modern divorce law. When divorce occurs, regrettable and unhappy though that is, the legal separation and the severing of the legal tie after the death of the marriage ought to be done with a minimum of humiliation and stress. The Law Commission said that nothing acts more obviously against that objective than forcing a petitioner to apply for the court's discretion. As more than one hon. Member has said, the bitterness engendered by it spills over into the later negotiations that must take place for access to children and financial provisions.
  The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) spoke about that problem very impressively. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said that he would be surprised if there were support for the status quo. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle) spoke similarly, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best), and other hon. Members. I, too, am surprised that there should be any support for the status quo.
  The question is whether we go for a one-year absolute bar or no bar at all. I should be extremely reluctant to follow the recommendations of the Law Commission if I were not satisfied that it had taken on board the danger, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston spoke so eloquently, that the message sent out from Parliament might be that divorce is easier, quicker, matters less and now requires only one year rather than three. I should have been far more concerned if I had felt that the Law Commission had not considered that aspect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst reminded the House, however, the Law Commission gave the matter deep consideration and stated in paragraph 58 of its report:
  "the difficulty of predicting the effect on public attitudes of any change in the law casts a heavy onus on those who seek to justify reform."
  I accept that onus. It continued:
  "On the other hand, there is one factor which seems to us very strongly to support the case for change: this is the requirement under the present law to allege and prove exceptional hardship or depravity".

  463
  On consultation, the Law Commission found that those conclusions were amply confirmed. The report states that the great majority of responses to the Working Paper overwhelmingly endorsed the proposition that the present rule was unsatisfactory.
  We must therefore ask whether there is any firm evidence that a time restriction acts as a deterrent to divorce rather than merely deferring it or whether the lack of such a restriction would lead to ill-considered marriages. Before 1937 there was no time restriction in England. People could bring petitions for divorce the day after they were married if they were so unfortunate as to wish to do so. That had been the case ever since Parliament gave the courts jurisdiction over divorce in 1857. In other words, that was the case for two thirds of Queen Victoria's reign, so the stability of marriage in those days about which we are so nostalgic, plainly owed nothing to any time bar. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) told us in his delightful speech, there is to this day no time bar in Scotland but there is no evidence that the Scots are more frivolous than the English about marriage, or indeed about anything else.
  We must also consider whether a disillusioned young husband in the early days of marriage can rid himself of the responsibilities of marriage and the married state only by means of divorce. The answer to that is no. He can get rid of his obligation to cohabit and his obligation to support his wife, which is surely the essence of marriage, by the simple device of petitioning for judicial decree, for which there is no time limit at all. In England and Wales today a person may petition for judicial separation the day after marriage.
  Only freedom to remarry is conferred by a decree of divorce. Therefore, I believe that we can say with confidence that the Law Commission was right to say that the danger and harm occasioned by the need to apply for the discretion of the court through a claim of depravity are so great and the risk involved in changing the arrangements so slight that the Law Commission was right to select the change that it did.
  I agree that one can argue convincingly for complete abolition, as has been argued by Lord Denning in another place and by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and others today. One could argue less convincingly for two years, but one argues it most convincingly for one year. No great issue of doctrinal purity is engaged, but on reflection, and especially after the special sessions in Standing Committee, I hope that hon. Members will opt for that because at least they will have heard the evidence.
  Mr. Abse: Since the Solicitor-General has, understandably, put the case for part 1 on the recommendations of the Law Commission, is it his intention that in Special Standing Committee we shall have the opportunity to question the Law Commission? That has not been done in Select Committee, for obvious reasons, but this is a Special Standing Committee, and in view of the disquiet that many people besides myself have expressed about part I, it would be wise if we had the opportunity to question it ourselves.
  The Solicitor-General: That is for the Committee to decide, as I understand the procedure. I served on the Criminal Attempts Bill, on which that procedure was followed, and the law commissioner responsible for the recommendation gave evidence before the Committee, which was useful.
  464
  I apologise to hon. Members if I have not dealt with some points that have been raised, but I am under a time restraint, as the House wished to fit in as many speeches as possible. The objective of the law for financial provision is that it should be able so to deal with the broken pieces of a marriage as to provide for the parties and their families justly and fairly. However, the question facing the House is how that should be put into statutory language. Most hon. Members would regard it as being too wide if we left it open, and Parliament has taken that view in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst asked whether one could ever achieve justice in a broken marriage. We have done our best, and Parliament has ruled that the courts must do justice between the parties but has set guidelines to steer them towards the objectives that they should serve. The problem is that the Law Commission advises us —it is also apparent from our post bags, as many hon. Members said — that those objectives and guidelines are only partially effective. They are guiding the courts wide of the mark. Therefore, the Bill makes modest changes. It is not the great, enormous Bill that it has been portrayed to be by its opponents. It is evolutionary, to use the Law Commission's wording, not revolutionary. However, it has become the subject of tragic misconceptions, as the hon. Member for Torfaen, with his vast experience and great fairness, made clear in his speech.
  The objective of the present law which must be served and achieved by the courts—the objective of putting the parties back into the financial position in which they would have been had the divorce not taken place—has gone. That is widely regarded as impossible, as the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), the hon. Member for Ipswich and others agreed. Therefore, it is removed, and instead we ask the courts to do justice between the parties in the light of certain guidelines. I shall return to the guidelines shortly.
  The Law Commission says that the children's interests are not given sufficient priority at present. Therefore, the Bill puts that right. First consideration is to be given to them—first consideration in importance, not in time.
  I shall deal with the guidelines only briefly because of the march of time. I hope that I shall be forgiven for not being detailed and accurate, which I could be, but only by excluding other matters. Under the provisions of the 1973 Act, eight separate matters are set out, of which the court must take account. Six out of those eight provisions are unchanged, and the most important in the context of today's debate is the one which says that the courts must have regard to the contribution that the wife has made to the welfare of the family—for example, in looking after the household and bringing up children. That is in the present Act and is retained unchanged in the Bill.
  It has been said that, for the first time, the issue of a partner's conduct has been brought back into the proceedings. The present Act says that the court must have regard to conduct, because it must try to put the parties back into the position in which they would have been had there been no divorce, to the extent that it is just to do so, having regard to their conduct. That has been put into a different format, but the sense has not changed, because, when the objective went, the format of the clause had to be changed. The Bill now says that the courts shall have regard to such conduct as it would be inequitable not to consider.

  465
  As the House will understand, I am not reading any text because I wish to get on, but that is the guts of the matter. Anyone who wishes conduct to be taken into account must establish to the court that it would be inequitable not to do so. The Law Commission said that there are circumstances in which it would be repugnant to ordinary people's sense of justice if conduct were not taken into account. That is the Wachtel case as developed by subsequent cases, and that is what we have tried to reproduce. We are advised by parliamentary counsel that we have achieved it, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said. That is the advice that we get privately, and that is its purpose.
  Mr. John Morris: Will the Solicitor-General comment on the views of Lord Denning, who is unhappy with the clause as drafted and who believes that the burden of proof is wrong?
  The Solicitor-General: Lord Denning believes that there should be additional guidelines. Equally, Lord Simon of Glaisdale believes that the courts would have no difficulty with this matter. We shall consider what was said in the debate and what is said in the Standing Committee, but we are satisfied at present that the clause achieves the desired effect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne mentioned an example of great importance that has given rise to anxiety in the House and in the country. In a nutshell, she asked what happens to a woman who has worked for years bringing up a family but who, when she is divorced, finds her earning capacity eroded and cannot learn a new trade. The courts must do what is just. What will be new section 25(2)(a) says that that which is just and reasonable shall be the criterion for the consideration of the courts. They must take into account whether it would be proper to make an award on the basis that it will, in the end, be terminated or that it will last only for a certain period.
  I return to the other criterion that I mentioned, which is that the courts must take account of the contribution that has been made by the wife or by the husband to the welfare of the family and to the bringing up of the children, and then do what is just and reasonable. Since we are quoting the Law Lords today, Lord Scarman says in the clearest terms that there is nothing for a woman in those circumstances to fear from the provisions of the Bill. There is not, and the courts can be relied upon to carry out the intention of the Bill: that they should do what is just and reasonable and accords with common sense. This is in the Bill, and it has been well explained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, although I may not have explained it so well.
  It would be useful if the Bill could do a little more, but, the world being what it is, I am afraid that it cannot. That is no reason for saying that we should not have the Bill. It is not a grand resettlement of divorce; it deals with solemn subjects. Some speeches have been for it, and some have been against it. We shall consider both. The Bill is a modest measure designed to remedy some damaging features of our present law. By remedying them, it does not weaken but strengthens our marriage law, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 68.

  Division No. 170]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Knowles, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Baldry, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Best, Keith

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Luce, Richard

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  MacGregor, John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Burt, Alistair

  Maclean, David John.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Maclennan, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Major, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Malone, Gerald

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Maples, John

  Cope, John

  Mather, Carol

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Dicks, Terry

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Dixon, Donald

  Merchant, Piers

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Dover, Denshore

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Favell, Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Forrester, John

  Moore, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Freeman, Roger

  Murphy, Christopher

  Gale, Roger

  Needham, Richard

  Galley, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Newton, Tony

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Norris, Steven

  Garrett, W. E.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Gow, Ian

  Parris, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ground, Patrick

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Powley, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Raffan, Keith

  Hannam,John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Harvey, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hayes, J.

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Haynes, Frank

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hayward, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Henderson, Barry

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hickmet, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Holt, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hordern, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Howard, Michael

  Sims, Roger

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

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Speed, Keith

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Spencer, D.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  JesseI, Toby

  Stern, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Stott, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Sumberg, David

  467

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Watts, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Weetch, Ken

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Wheeler, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Whitfield, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Wood, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Woodcock, Michael

  Waddington, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Leighton, Ronald

  Anderson, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  McCrea, Rev William

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McCusker, Harold

  Barnett, Guy

  Madden, Max

  Barron, Kevin

  Meacher, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Michie, William

  Beith, A. J.

  Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)

  Blair, Anthony

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Campbell, Ian

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Nellist, David

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cohen, Harry

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cunningham, Dr John

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

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

  Prescott, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Dormand, Jack

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dubs, Alfred

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Rogers, Allan

  Foster, Derek

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Gould, Bryan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Soley, Clive

  Howells, Geraint

  Straw, Jack

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Mr. Ian Mikardo and

  Lamond, James

  Mr. Kevin McNamara.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Special Standing Committee pursuant to the order of the House yesterday.

  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords]

    CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Greville Janner be discharged from the Select Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consplidation, &c., Bills and Mr. Nicholas Brown be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Hearing Aids
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
10.12 pm
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: First, I should like to make it abundantly clear that I am not opposed to the hearing aid industry. Indeed, in April 1968 I helped to put a measure on to the statute book to help and enhance the best elements within that industry. My purpose now is to oppose the unscrupulous operations, which the best elements of the industry deplore as much as I do. I plead for some protection for the most vulnerable sector of our society—those who have a hearing disability and who are also elderly.
My main concern is the failure to put an end to the advertisements which are a con-trick of the worst kind, exploiting those in need for the purpose of making a profit. Many of those advertisements are diabolical. They raise the hopes of those who are looking for a miracle. All those who suffer from deafness and loneliness must hope that there is some way in which their problem can be solved. An advertisement which promises to transform them into normal hearing members of society again raises hopes which cannot be realised. That is morally wrong.
I have worked on this matter for some years in close association with organisations 'which want to help the hard of hearing and the deaf, especially the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. The institute's director, Mr. Roger Sydenham, has sent me a letter containing a stack of advertisements which worry those who are concerned with the hard of hearing. He quotes the following phrases:

"Don't worry about your Hearing …

It's almost like having new ears

A miniature high technology hearing implant …

… hearing capsule

… Golden ear

… Christmas hearing".

I know of no other disability to help which people would suggest giving a Christmas present. The letter also mentions "Crystal Clarifier".
The letter continues:
"We have stated many times that gimmickry must not be linked with deafness: in my view all of the above references smack of gimmickry. Hearing-impaired people continue to be a highly vulnerable group, receptive to misleading and exaggerated claims of what an aid will be able to do.
Another issue which concerns us is the way that many advertisements are directed towards pensioners. We do know of many instances where elderly people have been persuaded to buy expensive aids which they could riot afford."
I know of many people from my advice bureau who have parted with life savings only to find that the aid has been useless. One of the worst advertisements runs:
"Don't buy a hearing aid until you have seen this tiny nonfunctioning model … We have 1250 models to give away free".
If one fills up the form on the advertisement, one receives a small piece of wood showing the aid's size. That is not the impression given by the advertisement.
My second condemnation of these hearing aid advertisements arises from the fact that they perpetuate the idea that a hearing aid is a badge of shame. Nobody likes to wear one. The advertisements reinforce the idea that it is socially unacceptable to be seen wearing a hearing aid. The result is that advertisements tend to say that nobody will notice, that it will be hidden, that nobody will be aware of the disability. That means that people who could be helped are not helped because they are ashamed.

469
People with hearing loss can be aided. Two generations ago we had the same problem with spectacles. We remember the adage, "Nobody makes passes at girls who wear glasses." Now people with sight loss have no hesitation in wearing glasses. Hearing loss is an equally important disability, but there is a continued reluctance to use the available benefit of a hearing aid.
I blame the unscrupulous side of the hearing aid industry for perpetuating the idea that hearing loss is something to be ashamed of. One of the worst offenders is a company called Hidden Hearing. The person in charge of that company was a member of the Hearing Aid Council when my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was the relevant Minister. She had to dismiss him from the council for several good reasons.
It has been said that I am opposed to the private sector. That is not true. My efforts have had the support of small businesses—the little shop in the high street has been grateful to me for providing what protection I can from the unscrupulous hard-selling outfit. The Guild of Hearing Aid Specialists comprises a group of small business men who are always inclined to get in touch with me on occasions such as this and say "More strength to your elbow." However, I am constantly opposed by the seven large firms which employ 60 per cent. of all dispensers of hearing aids. They are Scrivens, Ultratone, Amplivox, Ingrams, Hidden Hearing, Ardente and Seatons/Moss.
The third thing that is wrong about these advertisements is that they lead to coupon selling. One of the main problems now, as it was when I brought in my Bill in 1968, is to prevent the doorstep salesman with his foot in the door. These advertisements invariably carry a coupon which, if one fills it in, because of the way in which the Hearing Aid Council code of practice is drawn up, means that within 24 hours there is a person on the doorstep selling. It is not possible to diagnose correctly from a suitcase with a small bit of appartus such as that which produces a simple audiograph and to secure a correct fitting of the hearing aid. However, in 99 cases out of 100 the advertisements have a coupon arrangement. At the moment there is an arrangement whereby the hearing aid trainer should at least sign a form before the aid is sold by a trainee, but in my experience — and I have some experience of this—that is easily got round. All that is needed is a signature on a piece of paper.
Another claim made by the advertisements is that they are superior and that if one buys a private aid it will be superior to the 1 million dispensed free of charge by the NHS. In my left ear I have the NHS BE30 and in my right ear the NHS BE50. Both these aids are made by two well-known international firms, and if I bought them privately, as I could do, the same aids, with brand names on them, would leave me with no change out of £500. Yet they are available free through the NHS. It is wrong to pretend that one gets a superior service by paying, when the NHS hearing centre has all the modern technology and diagnostic aids which a first-class otologist consultant and audiologists command to provide all the arrangements that can be made to give the best possible help to the person whose hearing is impaired.
There are three possible answers to the problem. The first is that the Advertising Standards Authority should intervene to prevent these bad advertisements. The RNID
470
sent me one advertisement which it commended. It is possible to advertise responsibly, and if all the advertisements were like the one shown to me by the RNID I should not be making this speech tonight.
Since 19 January 1983 I have been in contact with the ASA to try to take in a deputation from the RNID, with myself and some of my colleagues, but with no result. The previous chairman, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, gave me every assistance, and when I had a Bill before the House was ready to pilot it through the other place. However, the present chairman, Lord McGregor of Durris, is not so helpful. I have a stack of correspondence here going back 19 January 1983, but I still cannot get any action from the ASA. I shall continue to try, because that is an avenue that is important, especially with the latest development.
Often, if one reads The Sunday Times, one will see on page 2 a thing that looks like an article and talks about hearing aids, but then says turn to page 28. On page 28 there is the advertisement for the coupon, and that contravenes the code of conduct for good advertising.
The second way to solve the problem lies with the Minister. He has the power to alter both the constitution and the code of practice of the Hearing Aid Council to enable it to deal with these problems. When this issue was raised, the council was prepared to move on it, but then there was a counter attack from the industry and two years later the original decision was rescinded. The Minister at that time, who is no longer a Member, came to a compromise. We have still had no action.
There is a third possibility. The Government could again support my private Member's Bill which seeks to amend my own Act. The history is interesting, because it shows how we in this place get caught up with timetables and events. I introduced the Bill and I got it through to the Report stage. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), who was leading for the then Opposition. Together, we finished the Committee stage, and we thought that the Bill would go through, only to find that a counter-attack on Report put it down.
The following Session, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) was leading for the then Opposition, and on Second Reading he gave his full support to the Bill. He accepted that there was no way in which the hearing aid industry's code of practice had any sanctions that bite. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell me that he and the Opposition—we in the Labour party were in government at the time—would help me to get my Bill on the statute book at the earliest opportunity. However, a general election intervened and the opportunity did not arise. In spite of a two-hour session with the right hon. Gentleman, who had then become the Secretary of State for Social Services, I was still unable to get it through, because the pressure of the amount of legislation made the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his support.
That Bill will come before the House again for a Second Reading. It is an innocuous Bill. All that it seeks to do is to give the Hearing Aid Council the power to vet and examine the unscrupulous advertisements. The Hearing Aid Council consists of six people from the industry, and only five representing the users of hearing aids. In other words, the industry has an in-built majority. It is not a draconian measure to propose that these ladies and gentlemen, with their knowledge of the industry and the

471
problems, should have the power to examine these unscrupulous advertisements and put in their code of practice the means whereby they can stop them.
That would be an easier way than for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to try to persuade his colleagues to find the time in a heavy legislative programme to introduce a Governmemt Bill. I shall introduce my Bill in the hope that the Whips will not be instructed to block it on a Friday, and in the hope that it will pass through a Committee stage. It has already had a Committee stage, because the Bill is identical to the one that I lost. I commend that as a possible solution.
Unless something is done, old people and people who have hearing problems tend to drop out of society. The side effect of deafness is loneliness. It means that elderly people are taken out of society although science and technology could help them to remain active. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look sympathetically at my plea tonight and do something to protect this vulnerable section of our society.
10.28 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): In responding to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), I shall begin by expressing my thanks, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs — which I understand is his full title at the Department of Trade and Industry—for the opportunity that I have— possibly to the hon. Gentleman's slight surprise—to discuss this important topic with him this evening. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend from that Department is unable to be here tonight, but I am happy to reflect, in the tangible form of being present and speaking in the debate, my own interest in this matter.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, part of my responsibility as Minister for the Disabled, although not the Minister for consumer protection in general, is to take an overview of the work of all Government Departments, in so far as they affect people with handicaps, including that of impaired hearing. Deafness is a handicap that can be easily overlooked, as the hon. Gentleman has cause to know better than many of us, because of its invisibility, and it can have serious and difficult effects on those who suffer from it. Not the least of my reasons for being pleased to be here tonight is that since I have been Minister with responsibilities for the disabled, the problems of the deaf have especially engaged my interest. Only this morning I was at a gathering with one of our well-known colleagues, the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). We were with Mr. Roger Sydenham and others of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf.
I pay a warm tribute to the efforts over a long period of the hon. Member for Brent, South on behalf of those suffering from impaired hearing. The hon. Gentleman sponsored the Bill which became the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968, and without him there would, I suppose, have been no council for him to be discussing the amendment of this evening. He was one of those appointed to represent the interests of the deaf when the council was established under the Act, and I know that he played an important part in drafting and negotiating the original standards of competence for dispensers and the code of trade practice which formed the basis of the council's later work. Although he has been suggesting some changes this evening, the small number of changes which have proved
472
necessary, certainly until now, have demonstrated the soundness of the council's original work and the hon. Gentleman's original efforts. Since then, he has sponsored the Hearing Aid Council (Extension) Act 1975, which extended the benefits of the 1968 Act to Northern Ireland. It is a pretty formidable record of the passage of private Member's Bills, which are not always the easiest things to take through the House. That is his record, despite the difficulties that he has experienced more recently.
The council, which was established under the 1968 Act, has the general function of securing adequate standards of competence and conduct among people engaged in dispensing hearing aids in the private sector. It has undertaken a number of other tasks, including examinations for those wishing to register. It has powers to discipline those who are guilty of unprofessional conduct. There is no doubt that the council has enhanced standards of competence and conduct among those engaged in dispensing hearing aids. For that very reason, all those who need such aids, or have impaired hearing, undoubtedly owe a considerable debt to the hon. Gentleman.
Hearing aids are complex miniature electronic instruments on which research is constantly being carried out to improve and refine their effectiveness. They can be very expensive items, the cost of some running into several hundreds of pounds. In 1977, the former Price Commission investigated the price of private hearing aids and charges for related services. It found that the industry had an unusual structure with a small turnover, a very static market, a large number of models and high advertising expenditure by some firms. This meant that the cost to the consumer, covering fitting, purchasing and after-sales service, was unusually high in relation to manufacturing costs. Nevertheless, profits in the industry were found to be modest.
As I am a DHSS Minister and not a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, I wish to emphasise the role that the NHS plays for those with impaired hearing. It provides a comprehensive programme of diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation. It does that irrespective of whether the patient wants also to use the services of the private sector. The Government —I think that I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me—see the two systems not as separate but as complementary. Patients can choose to have their hearing aids provided by the NHS, and many do. The standard range of NHS hearing aids, which are centrally purchased, is now wider than it has ever been. It should meet the needs of all but a very few patients. In exceptional cases, consultants can prescribe a commercial model that can be purchased from local funds.
There has been a continuing improvement in this service. For example, measured simply and perhaps crudely in cash terms, expenditure on the hearing aid budget alone has increased from just a little over £10 million in 1981–82, to about £11·5 million in 1983–84. The intention of improving NHS provision has been to expand the total service provided rather than to displace the private sector by the NHS. I certainly could not accept, nor do I think the hon. Gentleman would claim, that people are being forced into buying commercial aids. Indeed, if anything, the movement has been in the opposite direction.
Although the total number of hearing aids supplied through the private sector has remained static over the past three years, the number of dispensers has fallen. But,

473
whatever the numbers and trends in this market, there is general agreement—certainly, I am sure, between the hon. Gentleman and me — about the importance of ensuring that people with impaired hearing, who include, as the hon. Gentleman said, many who are elderly or infirm, are protected from dubious selling methods.
High-pressure salesmanship was one of the abuses that the 1968 Act set out to control. Although the code of practice did not entirely outlaw unsolicited home visits, paragraph 10 of the code stated:
"Dispensers shall not interview any potential client at his or her home with regard to the possible provision of a hearing aid unless requested to do so by the client or unless such client has already been in communication with the dispenser or his employer and, having been given reasonable opportunity, has not indicated objection to such a visit."
In 1981, after extensive consultations with interested parties, a series of additional safeguards was added. The requirements are that an unsolicited visit cannot now be made unless the client has previously sought information or assistance from the dispenser, and has been given 10 days written notice of the intended interview, has not objected, and has been given a pre-paid card or envelope so that he can decline. When such a visit is made, the interview must be free of charge and, most important of all, the client must be allowed a seven-day free trial period and be given written notice of his right to cancel the order and obtain a refund of any money that he has paid.
I would emphasise that all those conditions have to be met—not just one, two or three of them—before a dispenser can make an unsolicited call. In our view that should be sufficient to prevent abuse. But if anyone, including the hon. Gentleman, has evidence that those conditions are not being met, he should certainly put it to the registrar of the Hearing Aid Council, who will investigate the matter further.
The hon. Gentleman was mainly concerned about advertising. I would accept that it is obviously important to make sure that people are not misled about the characteristics or benefits of such instruments. The majority of advertising by hearing aid dispensers appears in national newspapers and magazines. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, such advertising is subject to the British code of advertising practice, administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. Perhaps I should acknowledge that I was a member of that authority until I became a member of the Government in 1979.
The code includes a special section dealing with hearing aid advertisers. Those who quote prices are required to specify the upper and lower limits of their price
474
range. The names of hearing aids are not allowed to exaggerate the product's effectiveness. Advertisements for hearing aid exhibitions are accepted only if the organiser undertakes to display a comprehensive range of models, to have at least one dispenser present throughout the exhibition and to make certain testing equipment available. Those safeguards apply in addition to the general requirements of the code that all advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.
In the early months of 1979 the Advertising Standards Authority conducted a monitoring survey of hearing aid advertisements, which lasted until November of that year. It was ended partly because no breaches of the code had been brought to light and partly because the authority had embarked on short, sharp, monitoring exercises, to be repeated if they were found to be necessary. At the end of the survey, it was decided that there was at that time no need for changes in the code.
The Department of Trade and Industry, which has responsibility for the council, receives very few complaints about hearing aid advertisements. Clearly the number will rise substantially as a result of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall ensure that what he has said is brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is responsible for corporate and consumer affairs. I have no doubt that he will wish to bring it to the attention of the authority. If he has not already done so, I hope the hon. Member for Brent, South will pass on the examples of advertisements which he thinks should be considered.
Our general view is that the safeguards in the hearing Aid Council's code of practice, the British code of advertising practice and the new provisions of the Companies Act 1981 make it unnecessary to impose further controls. The existing arrangements should be adequate to protect the consumer and at the same time allow him to choose for himself the type of treatment and instrument he prefers.
As I have already said, I shall draw to the attention of my hon. Friend as the Minister immediately responsible and reflect to myself as Minister for the disabled on the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. Whatever differences of detail may lie between us on the specific points he has raised, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will maintain his interest in the council which he did so much to create and continue his work in the cause of those with impaired hearing, for whom he has done so much.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Capital Allowances
  Capital Allowances
  Personal Financial Statistics
  Personal Financial Statistics
  Diplomats (Duty-free Goods)
  Diplomats (Duty-free Goods)
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
DEFENCE
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Exports
  Exports
  Armed Forces (Recruitment)
  Armed Forces (Recruitment)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Newcastle Disease (Pet Shops)
  Newcastle Disease (Pet Shops)
  Ice Cream Manufacturers
  Ice Cream Manufacturers
  Mackerel Fishing
  Mackerel Fishing
  EC (Pigment Regulations)
  EC (Pigment Regulations)
  Tributyl Tin
  Tributyl Tin
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Diseases of Fish Act 1983
  Diseases of Fish Act 1983
  Weeds Act 1959
  Weeds Act 1959
WALES
  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Development Board for Rural Wales
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Magistrates
  Magistrates
  Journalists (Prosecution)
  Journalists (Prosecution)
  Judicial Proceedings (Witnesses)
  Judicial Proceedings (Witnesses)
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
EMPLOYMENT
  USA and UK (Labour Statistics)
  USA and UK (Labour Statistics)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Northern Region (Skillcentres)
  Northern Region (Skillcentres)
  European Community (Employment Opportunities)
  European Community (Employment Opportunities)
  Young Persons (Average Earnings)
  Young Persons (Average Earnings)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Temporary Short Time Working Schemes
  Temporary Short Time Working Schemes
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
PRIME MINISTER
  Rates
  Rates
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Further Education Colleges (Lecturers)
  Further Education Colleges (Lecturers)
  United Nations
  United Nations
  Aldbury, Hertfordshire
  Aldbury, Hertfordshire
  Leeds
  Leeds
  Common Market Premiers
  Common Market Premiers
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Nuclear Weapons (Control)
  Nuclear Weapons (Control)
TRANSPORT
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  London Docklands Railway
  London Docklands Railway
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Vehicle Lighting
  Vehicle Lighting
  Goods Vehicles (Overloading)
  Goods Vehicles (Overloading)
  Dangerous Materials (Road Haulage)
  Dangerous Materials (Road Haulage)
  Bus Fares
  Bus Fares
  Public Transport
  Public Transport
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Passports
  Passports
  Hong Kong (International Conventions)
  Hong Kong (International Conventions)
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
ENVIRONMENT
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Planning Development (Tidal Estuaries and Seaward Areas)
  Planning Development (Tidal Estuaries and Seaward Areas)
  GLC (Expenditure)
  GLC (Expenditure)
  Police Authorities (Expenditure)
  Police Authorities (Expenditure)
  Police Services (Grants)
  Police Services (Grants)
  Rate Support Grant Negotiations
  Rate Support Grant Negotiations
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Local Authority Holdback
  Local Authority Holdback
  Empty Houses (Cornwall)
  Empty Houses (Cornwall)
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Water Research Centre
  Water Research Centre
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Licensed Betting Offices
  Licensed Betting Offices
  Electoral Law
  Electoral Law
  Cable Television Authority
  Cable Television Authority
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Voting Rights
  Voting Rights
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Police (Recruit Training)
  Police (Recruit Training)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Representation of the People Bill
  Representation of the People Bill
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Drug-related Crime
  Drug-related Crime
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Parole Board
  Parole Board
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Voluntary Organisations (Performance)
  Voluntary Organisations (Performance)
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  NATO Exercises
  NATO Exercises
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Member of Parliament (Qualifying Age)
  Member of Parliament (Qualifying Age)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Metropolitan Police (Sex Discrimination)
  Metropolitan Police (Sex Discrimination)
  Fines
  Fines
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Nationality Fees
  Nationality Fees
  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Independent Broadcasting Authority
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Burglaries
  Burglaries
  Horse Racing
  Horse Racing
  Fire Inspectors
  Fire Inspectors
  London (Fire Services)
  London (Fire Services)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Holloway Prison (Strip-searches)
  Holloway Prison (Strip-searches)
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Dr. Alan Clift
  Drink-Drive Offences (Penalties)
  Drink-Drive Offences (Penalties)
  Radio and Television Franchises
  Radio and Television Franchises
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Eastern European Citizens (Visas)
  Eastern European Citizens (Visas)
  Entry Visas
  Entry Visas
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Air Weapons (Young Persons)
  Air Weapons (Young Persons)
  Civil Defence Community Volunteers
  Civil Defence Community Volunteers
  Harrods (Terrorist Incident)
  Harrods (Terrorist Incident)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Grammar School Places
  Grammar School Places
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Rural Schools
  Rural Schools
  Primary Medical Care and Community Care
  Primary Medical Care and Community Care
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Patients (Waiting Time)
  Patients (Waiting Time)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Textile and Cothing Industries
  Textile and Cothing Industries
  Gas Consumers
  Gas Consumers
  Houses (Belfast)
  Houses (Belfast)
  Live Births
  Live Births
  Milk
  Milk
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Companies (Annual Returns)
  Companies (Annual Returns)
  Butter
  Butter
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Learjet Project
  Learjet Project
  Lear Fan 2100 Aircraft
  Lear Fan 2100 Aircraft
  Security Statistics
  Security Statistics
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Expenditure Cuts)
  Universities (Expenditure Cuts)
  Nursery School Places
  Nursery School Places
  Religious Education (Teachers)
  Religious Education (Teachers)
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Universities (Finance)
  Universities (Finance)
  University Students
  University Students
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  University Teachers
  University Teachers
  Expenditure Statistics
  Expenditure Statistics
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Cuba
  Cuba
  Exports (Tariff Barriers)
  Exports (Tariff Barriers)
  Motor Vehicle Servicing and Repairs
  Motor Vehicle Servicing and Repairs
  Thai Knitting Industry
  Thai Knitting Industry
  Cement Imports
  Cement Imports
  Merchant Ships
  Merchant Ships
  Rubber Tyres
  Rubber Tyres
  Mail (Delivery Targets)
  Mail (Delivery Targets)
  Network Services (Financial Support)
  Network Services (Financial Support)
  Steel
  Steel
  Scented Erasers
  Scented Erasers
SCOTLAND
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Nurses' Accommodation
  Nurses' Accommodation
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Forestry Commission (Sales)
  Forestry Commission (Sales)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Hepatitis B
  Hepatitis B
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Employment Conditions)
  Civil Servants (Employment Conditions)
  "Public Bodies 1984"
  "Public Bodies 1984"
  Ethnic Origin Surveys (Cost)
  Ethnic Origin Surveys (Cost)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS Staff (Re-employment)
  NHS Staff (Re-employment)
  Contraception
  Contraception
  Hospital Fees (Overseas Visitors)
  Hospital Fees (Overseas Visitors)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Specialist Claims Control Officers
  Specialist Claims Control Officers
  Calderdale Health Authority
  Calderdale Health Authority
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Deputising Services
  Deputising Services
  Private Pensions (Index-linking)
  Private Pensions (Index-linking)
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Consultant Posts
  Consultant Posts
  Doctors (Education and Career Structure)
  Doctors (Education and Career Structure)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Single-parent Families
  Single-parent Families
  Fraud (Convictions)
  Fraud (Convictions)
  Health and Social Security Bill (Blind People)
  Health and Social Security Bill (Blind People)
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Benzodiazepine
  Benzodiazepine
  Old Persons' Nursing Homes
  Old Persons' Nursing Homes
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  War Widows
  War Widows
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Nuclear Weapons: Launch Control
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are cognisant of the United States President's rights, under US law, to delegate the authority to release or use nuclear weapons located in this country; and whether any President has ever done so, and if so which, and to whom, on what occasion, for how long, and under what conditions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the effect of the existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States is that no United States nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister and the United States President. There is no question of either of them relinquishing their control.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which adds some clarity. My Question actually addressed itself to the rights of the United States President under United States law to devolve the decision to another American person. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government are fully aware of what American law is in this respect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of detailed interpretation of American law is not, I think, for me. But I can assure the noble Lord that the British Government are entirely happy with the arrangements.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a very real and important difference between dual control and dual key? Is he aware that we on this side of the House believe that in order to reduce our dependence on the United States or on any other country, and to maintain our sovereignty, duel key is of vital importance? The ultimate physical operation of the key is what we do not have, and is it in the minds of Her Majesty's Government to negotiate for that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am naturally aware of the view of the Opposition in these matters but, of course, the Government fundamentally disagree.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say whether the understanding between the
350
two governments to which he referred took account of the President's legal right to delegate firing authority to personnel in this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government's agreement to the present arrangements of course took account of all the considerations.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not possible to press the Minister on this point? We constantly receive replies about this understanding but we have never been told its content, or its date, or its authority. Could not the agreement perhaps be renegotiated and published? Or may we be told in some other way the contents of this understanding?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the original understanding was reached, if my memory serves me right, between the late Lord Attlee and the late President Truman. A statement was made at the time, and I recall quoting that statement to your Lordships.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a good deal of time has passed since then? Is he further aware that no Government spokesman has yet made so blunt a rejection of dual key as the noble Lord has today? Can he say what objection the Government have to dual key?
Lord Trefgarne: With respect, my Lords, that is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Noble Lords: Why?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, nowithstanding the understandable concern over the decision-making on these awesome weapons, the most important factor to ensure peace is the perception of any potential aggressor? His perception must be of a free democratic alliance which is necessarily cumbersome but which nevertheless is in a position and able to make any aggression too costly to contemplate. In plain words, let us keep this matter in perspective—I hope my noble friend will agree—and make sure that any potential aggressor knows he cannot get away with it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend, from his position of considerable experience in these matters, is of course quite right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not the noble Lord the Minister agree that the position today is very different from what it was when the original agreement was made? Does he not agree that the position today is that it is very short notice before a weapon released in this country can arrive in another country? Therefore, is not the situation very much more dangerous, and are not the arguments in favour of dual key very much stronger than they were originally?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, circumstances have of course changed since the original agreement was reached. That is why the agreement is reviewed, and has been reviewed, every time a new President or a new Prime Minister comes to Office.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Minister said that, in reviewing the agreement with the United States, the Government have kept under consideration all relevant factors—and the state of United States law is one of those. Would the House be right to deduce from that answer that the Government are cognizant of what United States law is on this point?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, of course, my Lords.

American Bases: Servicemen's Rules
3.5 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the existing "Rules of Engagement" of United States servicemen in this country, and of British troops guarding United States bases in this country have been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and if so whether they are satisfied that these "rules" conform with United Kingdom law.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the instructions which govern the use of force by British servicemen are fully compatible with the law of this country. We are satisfied, too, that the competent United States authorities are well aware of our law and that United States servicemen in the United Kingdom will at all times respect it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government have any reason for not submitting them to the Law Officers of the Crown?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord reads too much into my Answer. I did not say that.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the Minister realise that it is claimed that the American congressional record suggests that there is more than significant drug-taking among American servicemen generally? Is he not aware that recently six American servicemen were sent home? While one recognises that drug-taking is not confined to one nationality, in view of the fact that Greenham Common and other bases throughout the country are under American control, is the Minister satisfied with the safeguards in such a situation?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people in this country welcome the presence here of American troops, with the commitment that that involves to mutual action in the defence of peace and world security? Is he aware also that many of us resent the imputations which some people in this country see fit to make against these soldiers, who are serving their country, and the people of the world, overseas and far from home?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I welcome the intervention of my noble friend, and I precisely share his sentiments.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case that at Greenham Common and similar bases the forces are under an American command; and whether that command is not superior to any command over the British forces?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. The forces at Greenham Common are under joint command.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that, having served with the American forces in the last war, I am none too happy about the situation from personal experience? Is he further aware that his answer to my noble friend on the Front Bench about drug-taking was most inadequate? Will he reconsider his reply and answer more fully?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he was not happy to have served with the United States forces. How happy they were to serve with him, I am not clear.
Lord Shin well: My Lords, can the Minister say whether during the last war, when the United States decided to enter the conflict, there was any question of treaties, of law, of rules or of debates in Parliament, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, in order to determine whether we were right or wrong?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was nine months old on 7th December 1941, so my recollection is not too clear.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I must seek leave to correct what was said by the noble Lord the Minister just now. My relationships with the United States forces with whom I had the honour to serve were of the best. I did, however, have some grave doubts from time to time about the efficiency of their command, which is a different matter altogether.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to hear what the noble Lord says: but, as I mentioned, I have not heard their views of the noble Lord.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the Minister not consider that his reply to my supplementary question was not only brief but dismissive? Is he really unaware of the concern there must be among many people that some of those who will take responsibilities which are a matter of life and death for millions, perhaps, could be in a situation in which they are not really able to use the faculties that we would expect them to have?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord himself answered his supplementary question when he pointed out that there will always be a few people in any body of men who occasionally break the law.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord reconcile his answer, which he has given before today, that the American missiles at Greenham Common are

353
under joint command, with another answer which he has given the House, that they are under an American commander and a British deputy commander?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recall that your Lordships had an Unstarred Question on this matter asked, if my memory serves me, by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when I answered that question at considerable length. It may not be appropriate for me to repeat that answer now.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a hypothetical question? One never knows, it may come to pass. In a moment of crisis, if there is an American order to American personnel for these weapons at Greenham Common to be fired, would they not be under an obligation to obey the order?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that order would not be given unless the British Prime Minister had agreed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would there not be some advantage, in view of the disquiet about this, in discussions taking place with the American military authorities? After all, the soldiers at Greenham Common who are guarding the premises, and apparently the Americans as well, have been given the power to fire.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of the ultimate defence of the nuclear facilities at Greenham Common has been a matter for very considerable comment already. But I must emphasise that the arrangements for firing to which the noble Lord refers are of course in the very last resort.

Naval Defence Deployment
3.13 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: 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 are satisfied that, given the present deployment of many British vessels in the South Atlantic, the Far Eastern tour of HMS "Invincible" and two frigates will not jeopardize the naval defences of this country that have already been declared to be inadequate, in time of war, by the NATO Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel.
Lord Trefgarne: No—I beg your Lordships' pardon: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in view of the evident confusion existing in the official mind on this subject, may I ask whether the Government are persuaded that the voyage of HMS "Invincible" and two frigates to the Far East served any useful purpose? Would they not agree that the sooner we can get back to the defence of this country the naval forces deployed in the South Atlantic the better for all concerned and for the safety of the United Kingdom?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course the principal threat that we face is the threat we face within the NATO area. But there are other threats, too—some outside the area—and we have to deploy our forces as necessary to meet these threats as well.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, arising out of his Answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that in two world wars what brought this country nearest to defeat was loss of sea power, and that sea power has never been so drastically reduced by any Government in British history as it has been by the present Government during the past three years? We have withdrawn the British naval presence from the Persian Gulf, Aden, and from the Mediterranean, with the exception of a toe-hold in Gibraltar now under sentence of death, and today we are unable to fulfil our obligations to NATO in home waters. Will the noble Lord give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will stop attacking the Royal Navy, and start' rebuilding our sea power, upon which we ultimately depend for our existence and survival?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that our naval forces today are stronger than they have ever been in our history. The basis of the noble Lord's supplementary question is therefore in error.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister not reflect that his ability to say no when he meant yes is the reason why many of us have serious fears when the nuclear potential is involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, coming from the noble Lord and his noble friends opposite, with the ability to say one thing when they mean another, that is rather surprising.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that he is totally wrong in saying that our naval forces are stronger than they have ever been in our history? Is it not necessary to compare our strength with that of other countries, and particularly with the strength of the Soviet Union? Therefore, would he wish to withdraw that and make quite clear that our strength is much lower in relation to other countries than it has ever been?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, strength is not only measured by the numbers of vessels of a particular type which may be available for service at any time. It refers also of course to the fire-power of the weapons that they carry.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord, in view of his reply to my supplementary question, whether he realises that the naval forces in this country, which he says are far stronger than they have ever been, were barely able to cope with the Argentine?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the essential threat which we face, to which I referred in answer to the first supplementary question, is the threat in Europe, the threat to NATO; and the Question on the Order Paper refers principally to that, too. As I have said, our naval forces are more powerful in many ways than they have ever been, and that is why they were indeed successful in the South Atlantic.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, do the Government agree or disagree with the statement of the NATO—that is to say the British—Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel, that the forces at his command are quite inadequate at the moment to defend these islands?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Admiral's remarks were of course designed to refer also to all the NATO forces in the Western Atlantic, of which the United Kingdom forms only a part.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the British Navy is now the strongest it has ever been particularly in relation to its fire-power, and many of us interpret that as its nuclear fire-power. Why then do we need a foreign nation to place its nuclear weapons on this island when the Royal Navy is the strongest it has ever been? It does sound a contradiction in terms.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is because the threat is of course greater than it has ever been, too.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that noble Lords on the other side of the House, when they come to argue that it is better for us to increase our conventional weapons, will find themselves having to use the arguments that they need high technology and the degree of modernisation of weapons rather than counting the number of guns and the number of men?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is right.

Retail Sales: Statistics
3.17 p.m.
Lord Sandys: 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 was the volume of retail sales in the United Kingdom during 1983 and what was the corresponding figure for 1982.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the index of the volume of retail sales in Great Britain in 1983 was 114.4, which was 5½, per cent. higher than the index of 108.2 for 1982. These index numbers are based on the year 1978 being 100.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would it be true to say that these figures indicate the increasingly healthy state of the British economy?
Lord Lyell: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether, when he refers to the volume of trade, he refers to money or tonnes?
Lord Lyell: The second, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House some indication how these increased retail sales are reflected in the imports into this country of the goods that are sold in our shops? Will he also give the House an assurance that when his right honourable friend comes to consider his Budget he will remove the VAT disadvantage which gives a cash flow advantage to importers into this country of some thousands of millions of pounds for a period of between 11 and 13 weeks?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the interest of the noble Lord in VAT and cash flow to my right honourable friend. I am sure he will give close attention to the views expressed. As far as the noble Lord's first question is concerned, I could not give him exact figures. Perhaps I may write to him. I can tell the noble Lord, however, and I can tell your Lordships, that exports increased by 9½ per cent. in the last quarter of last year, which was a much faster rise than the rise in imports.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the figures he has just quoted are a reflection of the increased use of credit cards and of instalment credit generally, and not a reflection of any basic economic recovery?
Lord Lyell: Not entirely, my Lords. The noble Lord will know perfectly well that credit cards and other forms of credit are a reflection of the increase in consumer spending.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what percentage of this increase in retail sales came from the nearly four million people unemployed?
Lord Lyell: No, my Lords.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the corresponding figures for savings were over the same period?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that is another question.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to reconsider that answer, because it is exactly the same question? Many Members of your Lordships' House know that the increase in the volume of sales derives from the fall in savings, and the noble Lord should come to the House prepared to give that information.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I believe that the issue is not necessarily relevant to the Question on the Order Paper, but I shall study with great interest the remarks of the noble Lord—and with great gratitude, too.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Telecommunications Bill will be adjourned for a short period for dinner at approximately 7 p.m.

Telecommunications Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Cockfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [General duties of Secretary of State and Director.]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
(": and
( ) to secure that any licence or agreement concerning any United Kingdom consumer or United Kingdom operator or foreign user or associations of such consumers, operators or users shall not prevent, restrict or distort competition between United Kingdom operators in the United Kingdom or in markets outside the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: There is real anxiety about the present position of the Bill relating to future competition policy which could lead to serious litigation in the United Kingdom and in many countries abroad against the privatised British Telecom and its licensees unless the duties of the Secretary of State and the proposed director general are clarified under Clause 3 in regard to this matter of competition policy. We are told by the Government and their supporters that the main objective for the privatisation of British Telecom, to quote from the opening words of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when opening the Second Reading debate, is,
"greatly to improve competition to the universal benefit".— [Official Report, 16/1/84; col. 841.]
In pursuing that objective it seems to me that the Secretary of State and the director general may be, unwittingly no doubt, entering on a marketing course which, it could be said in some quarters and is being said in some quarters in this country and abroad, will be found to be contrary to laws and regulations relating to unfair trading, unfair competition and antitrust in the United Kingdom and many countries abroad.
I refer, if I may, to Amendment No. 42, which has been tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Spens. It is an amendment to prevent anti-competitive practices by British Telecom and the director general as defined in Section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1980, or restraint of trade. Therefore, there is a general anxiety in this country that there may be potential litigation unless there is some amendment to passages in the Bill relating to competition policy.
It has also been said from America that the Bill as at present drafted may be contrary to the anti-trust regulations in the United States. It will be very sad if, on privatisation, British Telecom and some of its licensees were faced by anti-trust proceedings in America, particularly at this time when the Secretary
358
of State for Trade and Industry has been doing so well in his negotiations with Americans, inter alia, in this field.
The object of my amendment is to suggest to the Government that they should at least prepare for difficulties ahead, even if they cannot avoid them completely, and should put into the clause dealing with the general duties of the Secretary of State and the director general some form of safeguarding measure on the lines of my amendment. I agree that the words of my amendment are certainly not perfect, but may I take a few minutes to analyse its purpose? It is to be inserted in Clause 3 of the Bill, which covers the general duties of the director and the Secretary of State. The object is that they should operate in such a way as,
"to secure that any licence or agreement concerning any United Kingdom consumer or United Kingdom operator or foreign user or associations of such consumers, operators or users shall not prevent, restrict or distort competition between United Kingdom operators in the United Kingdom or in markets outside the United Kingdom."
Quite simply, it is a general clause indicating quite clearly that the Government consider that the Secretary of State should not enter into any kind of relationship with licensees which will prevent, restrict or distort competition either inside or outside the United Kingdom.
It may be said that this kind of amendment is more appropriate elsewhere in the Bill. I do not think it should he included merely in the clause dealing with licences, because it is a general cautionary measure indicating the policy of the Secretary of State and the director in regard to competition. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): I have listened with care to the explanations given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on his amendment. Despite the way he has expressed his views, I confess that there are certainly problems with the drafting of the amendment, as well as with its substance. He particularly referred to the matter of American anti-trust laws, and I am most grateful to him for giving us a warning on a matter that involves considerable legal complexity.
The noble Lord indicated that there might be difficulties with British Telecom PLC facing competition regimes in other countries. I cannot do anything now other than respond in general terms to his concern. The Government do not envisage any problems arising in that area as a result of the Bill or Government policy. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in another place, the Government have taken liberalisation in telecommunications further than any other Government. We have been the first to license a nationwide alternative telecommunications network with international access and the first to license two competing cellular networks with national coverage. We were the first in Europe to establish independent standards and approval arrangements, and the United Kingdom is the country with the most liberal arrangements in the world for value-added network services. Therefore, while I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, I can assure him that the Government are

359
doing a great deal both to introduce more competition and to take steps under the Bill, and under existing competition legislation, to ensure that there is fair competition in the telecommunications market.
Clearly the Secretary of State and the director would note the effect on other countries of the market and competition generally; it would be part of their remit. I hope that that covers the main points which the noble Lord intended by his amendment. If he wishes, I could go a little further and explain why the drafting is wrong, but I hope that the explanation I have given will enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I agree with the Minister that the drafting is not perfect; I said so in my speech. But the main theme of the reply is simply that the Government do not envisage any of the problems which I have presumed to put before your Lordships today. I agree with him also that it is a legal matter. It involves legal matters with which I have been concerned professionally for years. Therefore, it comes down to this—the Government lawyers do not think there are any problems but certain lawyers outside consider there may be problems and are trying to help by putting forward an amendment of this kind. If the noble Lord takes the view that there are no problems, at any rate the matter has been aired. When Hansard is published I will read what the noble Lord has said and consider raising the matter again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("Part II or Part III of").
The noble Lord said: This is quite a small point which comes about in this way. Under Clause 3(2) the Secretary of State and the director have a duty to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to them under Part II or Part III of the Bill. Why is it that we want to limit the functions assigned or transferred to them as being only under Part II and Part III? The director is referred to in Part VII, in Clause 88. The Secretary of State's functions are referred to in Part V, in Clauses 52, 61 and 62. Consequently I should have thought that it would he better if Part II and Part III were cut out so that this clause dealt with his functions throughout the Bill rather than in a limited area. He must consider matters which are best calculated to do certain things, but so far I cannot understand why those functions should be limited to Part II and Part III when the Secretary of State and the director have functions in other parts of the Bill. It is a very small point. I suggest that Part 11 and Part III be eliminated so that the whole Bill can be considered in relation to the matters with which he has to deal. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Those for whom I speak on this side of the Committee wish to associate themselves with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. As he has said, Clause 3(2) purports to give authority to the Secretary of State and the director to do all kinds of desirable things—to promote the interests of the consumer; to maintain
360
and promote effective competition; to promote efficiency and economy; to promote research, et cetera; to encourage major users of telecommunications services; to promote the provision of international transit services, and so on. It is on the basis of objectives of these kinds that the Bill as a whole has been publicised by the Government for the commendation of the country. Therefore, of course, these objectives are all-pervasive.
Are we to assume that the contents of Part V of the Bill, which deals with the sordid financial details of this whole matter, are not in conformity with the objectives of the Secretary of State and the director? Surely if the contents of Subsection (2) mean anything at all, if they are designed for the protection and comfort of the consumer, if they are designed to promote the interests of the telecommunications industry and all the rest of it, then these are all-embracing and all-pervasive objectives. It is very difficult to understand why they should be confined to Part II and Part III.
I will not disguise from noble Lords the fact that on my interpretation of Part V of the Bill—I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for having supplied me with further and better particulars of the Bill than those contained in the explanatory memorandum—I am constrained to believe that in many respects the financial provisions of the Bill, the financial constraints that it is going to place on those who run British Telecom under the new regime, will run completely counter to the objectives as set out in Clause 3(2). I can understand, therefore, the Government's reluctance not to have Part V in particular—there are other parts as well—related to this part of the Bill. I think it strikes right to the root of it.
If these objectives and these responsibilities are going to be as they are stated, they should govern every aspect of this Bill. If all parts of the Bill are not consistent with benefits to the nation and to the consumer, then the Bill means nothing. To confine it to Part II and Part III may possibly be interpreted as a rather cynical restriction on the Government's part. They may be seen as saying, "Well, of course, in certain respects we are going to follow these, but in the other parts of the Bill with financial implications we prefer not to commit ourselves".
Since this is a very small amendment I should have thought it does not put any great strain on the Government draftsmen; certainly it places none on the printers and very little upon the intellectual perceptions of noble Lords in all parts of the Committee. It would be far more satisfactory to omit these particular words as comprised in the amendment so that the interpretation of the matters dealt with in subsection (2) becomes all-pervasive and penetrates to every part of the Bill, whatever action is taken, in order to ensure that the interests of the consumer and the nation shall remain the paramount consideration throughout the Bill.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has pointed out that he would wish this amendment to go very wide. I am sure the Committee will bear with me if I suggest to him and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the amendment

361
would require the Secretary of State and the director to exercise all the functions which were assigned or transferred to them under the Bill in the manner best calculated to secure the various duties which your Lordships will find in Clause 3(2). I am not sure whether the noble Lords would appreciate all the various functions that are sssigned or transferred to the Secretary of State or to the director under the various parts which they would wish to include. These are Part I, Part IV, Part V, Part VI and Part VII of the Bill.
I suggest to the Committee that a blanket amendment of the type that has been proposed would he apt to produce unforeseen and probably undesirable consequences—
Lord Bruce of Donington: Oh!
Lord Lyell: If the noble Lord thinks that this is "funnies time", I shall produce one or two examples for him, and I am sure that we shall agree at least on that, whatever might happen later on in the day. Whatever might be the case for bringing particular functions in other parts of the Bill within the scope of Clause 3, I hope to show by quoting examples that it would be inappropriate to seek to achieve that result by way of the amendment.
Under Part IV of the Bill—to take one example—the Secretary of State has a licensing function in relation to such matters as cable programme services, and as those of your Lordships who sit in the Chamber on other measures at varying times will appreciate, those are quite distinct from telecommunication services. That is clear from the respective definitions set out in the Bill. In granting licences for the provision of cable programme services it will be for the Home Secretary, not my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to take decisions in the light of broadcasting policy and criteria. We do not think that it would make any sense to subject the Home Secretary to the duties that are in Clause 3 of the Bill, which effectively define the public interest in relation to telecommunications, when he (the Home Secretary) is deciding whether or not to license the provider of cable programme services.
If I may give one more example, I would point out that the amendment would cause a different type of difficulty in relation to Part VI of the Bill which, as the Committee will be aware, modifies some of the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Acts; I stress some of the provisions, but not of course all of them. Thus under those provisions modified by Part VI of the Bill my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be bound to act in conformity with his Clause 3 duties. Leaving aside the question of whether it would be appropriate for the functions assigned to him by Part VI of the Bill to be subject to the Clause 3 duties, that would create the anomaly that on a quite arbitrary basis some of his wireless telegraphy functions would have to be carried by reference to the Clause 3 duties, whereas others—those not modified by Part VI—would not.
In his very succinct moving of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked why were the Clause 3 duties limited to Parts II and III of the Bill. I should like to stress that the Clause 3 duties were designed to
362
ensure that in the licensing and regulating of telecommunications under Parts II and III of the Bill certain important objectives were secured. I hope that I have said enough to convince Members of your Lordships Committee that much further thought would be needed before the influence of the duties was extended to other parts of the Bill.
I should like briefly to attempt to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The noble Lord referred to Part V and used some quite interesting and emotive terms about the financial aspects. The noble Lord will see, and the Committee will appreciate, that Part V of the Bill gives the necessary statutory hacking for the disposal of shares in British Telecom. Broadly speaking, the Secretary of State has two sets of functions in this context. First, there are those which are necessary to make the flotation possible; for example, authorising the vesting of BT's assets in a company which is subject to the Companies Acts. Secondly, there are those which are related to the Government's continued ownership of shares in BT PLC.
We think that it would be wholly inconsistent with both the Government's announced time scale for the flotation and the desire to set BT free to act as a normal commercial company, subject to the new regulatory arrangements, for the Secretary of State to carry out his functions under Part V in the manner best calculated to secure the Clause 3 objectives. In practice that would lead to continuing interference in the affairs of BT PLC on the part of the Government, and that is certainly something that we should not wish to see. Following that explanation, which I fear was rather lengthy, I hope that the Committee will see fit not to accept the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: May I take up the noble Lord on one point. As I see it, the amendment seeks to bring the activities of only the Secretary of State in regard to Parts IV, V, VI and VII under the scope of the clause. It does not at any point seek to bring in the actions of the Home Secretary. It refers solely to the Bill and only to those parts of it in which the Secretary of State has a responsibility. I was most interested to observe that it is admitted that for the Secretary of State to operate under Part V of the Bill, which deals with the privatisation of British Telecom, would be considered repugnant in the context of Clause 3(2), in that that would not be consistent with promoting the interests of the consumer. Therefore I can quite understand why the noble Lord wishes to remove Part V from the ambit of the objectives set out in Clause 3(2). I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, proposes to do with his amendment, but if he is constrained to divide the Committee, we on this side will support him.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I understand that the noble Lord the Minister says that as drafted Parts IV and VI have nothing to do with the Secretary of State. I do not quite understand why the noble Lord should take such a positive view that the Secretary of State has nothing to do with Parts IV and VI of the Bill. They are quite brief parts, dealing with cable and wireless matters, and I should have thought that they would come within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.

363
But when it comes to Part V, the noble Lord's reply is even less easy to understand because Part V includes Clause 62, which is concerned with:
"Exercise of Secretary of State's functions through nominees".
Clause 3 of the Bill, with which we are concerned, sets out how:
"The Secretary of State and the Director shall each…exercise the functions assigned or transferred to him…in the manner which he considers is best calculated"—
There is then given a whole list of ways in which the Secretary of State and the director should operate. Is the noble Lord the Minister saying that when Clause 62 states that the Secretary of State must exercise his functions through nominees they are functions other than those that are already listed in Clause 3(2)? That seems to me incredible.
I could go on. There is a provision which may bring a certain amount of delight to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. It is Clause 67, which deals with the dissolution of British Telecommunications. When it comes to dealing with that particular matter are the functions of the Secretary of State not to be as are set out in Clause 3(2)? Unless the noble Lord the Minister requires more time to look at this matter, I fear that I shall have to test the temperature of the Committee on it. But perhaps the noble Lord will have something to say in reply to what I have said.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: There is one small point. As I read the Cable and Broadcasting Bill, Part IV would be repealed by the Bill. It is not therefore relevant to the argument. I do not think that it is important. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I would not have thought that the amendment raises a terribly important issue. Secondly, I suggest to him that the Government's explanation was perfectly satisfactory. Thirdly, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made a tremendous meal out of it, but perhaps he had another purpose in doing so. Altogether, I would have thought that this is not the sort of amendment upon which the time of the Committee should be spent in dividing.
Lord Beswick: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says that this is not terribly important. I would have thought it was reasonably important to consider what part of the Secretary of State's duties should be exercised not in the interests of the consumer. Time and time again, I have heard Ministers from the Dispatch Box argue against an amendment that endeavours to put down particulars to strengthen duties in particular circumstances. The argument from the Government Dispatch Box is always: "Don't particularise because it weakens the case in other areas". Here, it would seem, at any rate, that while the Secretary of State and the director have a duty to exercise their functions in the interests of consumers and other users in these two Parts, a normal reading would suggest that in other Parts they do not have that duty—that they are not intended to, or they are under not obligation to, promote the interests of consumers and other users.
364
The one case given by the noble Lord as an explanation of why it would be unwise to take out Parts II and III was that of the Home Secretary who has the duty in respect of cables. However, as we are talking about the Secretary of State and the director who:
"shall each have a duty to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to him"
if he has no duties transferred or assigned to him in relation to cables, it does not apply in that case. I would have thought that the noble Lord could accept this. It would strengthen the Bill and make it look more sensible.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for pointing out the position as regards Part IV. I was surprised to hear the Minister laying his argument on Part IV when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says that Part IV might be rejected altogether and eliminated from the Bill. I understand that that is right. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment. Is the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, correct in saying that Part IV in the future will be taken out of the Bill? Therefore, in so far as his argument rests on Part IV, it is resting on sand and is of no consequence.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and other noble Lords, have raised various points expressing their dissatisfaction with my explanation. I stress to the Committee that the duties of the Secretary of State and the director general set out in Clause 3(2) are specifically related to the provision of telecommunication services in Part II and related functions in Part III. Part V of the Bill, which relates specifically to privatisation, is, I think the Committee will agree, a different issue. The duties in Clause 3(2) are not necessarily or specifically related to privatisation.
Your Lordships gave the Bill a Second Reading and endorsed the principle of privatisation. I would go further and say that Part V should not be covered by the Clause 3 duties. The Secretary of State, in so far as Part V is concerned, is a shareholder. He cannot, as a shareholder, favour competitors over the business that he owns or, put customers before everything else. If he is covered by Clause 3, as the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd, and Lord Bruce—and perhaps also the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—would wish, he will have to cut prices and carry out other duties that he may not necessarily wish to do. I am afraid that I could not go further than the explanations I have already given.
Lord Morris: I believe that the amendment, as drafted, is flawed. If it was passed, it would cause considerble chaos, as suggested by my noble friend. However, it is clear to me that the Government have not really been bothered to draft this part of Clause 3(2) properly. It is clear, for instance, if you look at the miscellaneous and supplementary parts of the Bill in Part VII that there is a specific function upon the director who:
"may for any relevant purpose, by notice in writing signed by him, require any person to produce—any documents"
Any relevant purpose is a relevant purpose for the whole of this Bill. There is no question that if Her

365
Majesty's Government were to take this away and redraft Clause 3(2) to say "under Part II and Part III and Section this and Section that of the Act", they will get it right. That is all that they have to do.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord the Minster made no comment to me. Perhaps, when he has consulted his notes, he will be able to listen. I am in no hurry, although I thought that the Government was. I do not want to delay the Committee. I only want to ask one simple point. That is to ask what he has to say about what Lord Mottistone stated—that Part IV is to be eliminated from the Bill. His initial argument—he has had some help since then—based on Part IV is really totally irrelevant. I have always been brought up on the understanding that when a clock strikes 13, I get very suspicious of its mechanism. When therefore the noble Lord rests his case on Part IV, and that is not going to be in the Bill, I get a little suspicious that his argument in relation to Part V and even Part VI may not be so sound as it appeared.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I give the Minister 15 seconds more respite? I noted carefully and wrote down the words that he used in his first speech on the amendment. The noble Lord said: "Whatever might be the case for bringing particular functions in other parts of the Bill under this Clause 3(2)". In his response to his noble friend Lord Morris, the noble Lord will perhaps consider the justice of what he has said and whether he has not already conceded the case.
Lord Lyell: So far as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is concerned, this is the easiest part of the Bill. The noble Lord referred to clocks striking. Neither has struck. They are both ticking. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, may not appreciate it but certainly I do—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I—
Lord Lyell: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish this sally. The noble Lord has taken two or three stabs at me, and I have sat patiently. The noble Lord says that the clock has struck. The noble Lord may not be aware but I think the rest of your Lordships will be aware that the Cable and Broadcasting Bill is still going through your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Mottistone may have some opinions, but what I have said about Part IV of the Bill before us today is not necessarily irrelevant yet. So far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is concerned, I am afraid that there is nothing I can add. I am told that Part IV will only be repealed when the cable Bill becomes law.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Paper has been flowing backwards and forwards from the Government Front Bench to dark corners of your Lordships' House for some time. I shall not delay the Committee any longer or cause more confusion between the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the Minister on this question. I shall read what has been said today and see whether something can be sorted out for another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Somers Lord Somers moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 12, after ("promote") insert ("and protect").
The noble Lord said: All the amendments which stand in my name are those proposed by the Post Office Users' National Council. This one pretty well speaks for itself. It emphasises something that is sometimes overlooked in the process of this Bill, and that is that the consumers' interest must come first. There are those who may say that the inclusion of these words are unnecessary since "to promote" might also include "to protect". However, the amendment emphasises the sense of the provision, and I do not think that it would do any harm to include it. Many of your Lordships perhaps know my opinion on the making of Second Reading speeches as regards amendments, so I shall say no more. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: This amendment is not purely semantics. It is designed to strengthen the commitment. Your Lordships will recall that during the discussion on the first amendment in this marathon debate, we expressed anxieties on the part of consumers and others at the immense power that was being concentrated on the Minister and the director, and the diminished power of the Post Office Users' National Council, which at present is the watchdog of consumer interests.
I took the trouble to look up the words "promote" and "protect" in the dictionary in the Library. There is no doubt that "to protect" is a much more positive commitment than "to promote". "To promote" is to further the growth and development; but "to protect" is to defend or guard from any danger. I suggest that in this case we are entitled to a firm commitment of this kind.
Some of your Lordships will recall the distinguished chairmanship of the Post Office Users' National Council by the late Lord Peddie. Lord Peddie did something quite unique as the chairman of a consumers' council. When the Post Office proposed certain changes in charges, Lord Peddie was good enough to employ consultants and accountants on behalf of POUNC in order to check whether the case was justified. To that extent he was exercising his positive power in protecting consumer interests.
For the benefit of those noble Lords who do not have a copy of the Bill at hand, Clause 3(2)(a) says:
"to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in the United Kingdom (including,"
and so on. What is intended is simply "to promote", but also "to protect". I suggest that, since the power of consumer protection is diminished by this proposed legislation, we are entitled to ensure that that commitment is retained. I support the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I do not wish to make a Second Reading speech on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, have already put the point very adequately. I do not propose to add to what they have said, save to say that if the noble Lord is constrained to bring this matter to a Division—as I sincerely hope he will do if the Government do not accept the amendment—we on this side of the Committee shall most certainly support him.
Lord Morris: I believe that this amendment is asking Her Majesty's Government to do the impossible—namely, to push and pull at the same time. The promotion of the interests of some consumers, purchasers and users could be against the interests of other consumers, purchasers and users. They are being asked to protect them on the one hand, and to promote the interests of other users on the other hand. I believe that this is almost incapable of legal definition.
The Countess of Mar: Does not the whole of the Bill make the poor director and the Secretary of State push and pull?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lords who have proposed and supported this amendment have put forward a convincing case as to why the interests of consumers must be safeguarded. I quite agree that they should be safeguarded. But I suggest to the Committee that they already are, and I should like to explain how.
This Bill contains a great deal more to safeguard and promote interests of consumers than there is under present legislation. First, there are the safeguards for the essential services—public call-boxes, the 999 service, services to rural areas—in Clause 3(1)(a). This is the first time that these services have been mentioned in telecoms legislation.
Secondly there is the appointment of the director. The Post Office Users' National Council, to which the noble Lord who moved the amendment referred, has done a good job and it has had a very good reputation. But there is no denying that its effectiveness has been limited by its lack of enforcement powers. It can take up complaints with BT, but it has to rely entirely on persuasion. The result has been that many consumers feel that they are confronted by a giant organisation, in the form of British Telecommunications, which can act with little regard to the interests of consumers. But all this will change when the Bill is enacted. BT's operations will be constrained by the conditions of the licence and many of these conditions will be concerned entirely with consumer matters. And not only will the director have a duty to examine complaints, but he can use his licence enforcement powers to oblige BT to correct matters which are working against consumers' interests.
If I may briefly anticipate provisions elsewhere in the Bill that we have not yet discussed, there are also other improvements for consumers. For example, there is the establishment of national advisory bodies not only as at present for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also for England as well. This is again an extension of consumer interests. Further, BT have up until now had immunity from being sued. But in future customers will have a contract—and this is something to which I referred the other day—in the same way that they have a contract for any service provided to them. Again this is a substantial improvement in the rights of consumers.
It has been said that the director has so many functions that he may lose sight of the interests of consumers. But this will not be the case. Not only will he have the national advisory bodies to which I have referred, which will be primarily concerned with consumer matters and which will ensure that he is kept
368
fully up to date and aware of developments affecting consumers, but the duty in Clause 3(2)(a) which we are discussing will ensure that consumers' interests are not overlooked.
From the short speeches which we have heard in support of this amendment, one might take the view that it could be argued that even if the amendment is unnecessary it might just as well be included. I think I must explain that, as well as being unnecessary, the inclusion of this amendment would have some very undesirable effects. For example, Clause 3 is carefully constructed so that the duties in subsection (1) have precedence over those in subsection (2). This is because the Government believe that the provision of a universal service and of the essential social services is of overriding importance. But this amendment would alter the balance—and I think that this is really the point that my noble friend Lord Morris was making. For example, if the director was under a duty to "protect" the interests of consumers, but only to promote effective competition under (b); to promote efficiency and economy under (c); and to promote research and development under (d); there would most clearly be a conflict. For example, it might be in the interests of consumers to have very low prices at the present, at the expense of making a sufficient return to invest in services for the future. I hardly think that the noble Lord who proposed the amendment would think that that was desirable.
The position is that the director must take into account all the various factors and give each one due prominence in making decisions. We do not want to weight the scales unduly in favour of one interest alone. To do so would create just the sort of imbalance to which my noble friend referred. For that reason it would be totally inappropriate, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord is quite right when he says that a body such as the Post Office Users' National Council has no powers except that of persuasion. He did not add "persuasion of the Government", which is a Herculean task which only a superman could possibly achieve. I am not a superman, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, my name is also down to this amendment and I propose to divide the Committee on this.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Ardwick, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Aylestone, L.

369

Banks, L.

Kennet, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Bishopston, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bowden, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brockway, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burtonof Coventry, B.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar, C.

Chitnis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Molloy, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Denington, B.

Plant, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ennals, L.

Roberthall, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Fulton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Somers, L.

Galpern, L.

Spens, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stamp, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strauss, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacobson, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kagan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kearton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Alport, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gainford, L.

Belstead, L.

Glanusk, L.

Bessborough, E.

Glasgow, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Caithness, E.

Gormanston, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gridley, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hampden, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hawke, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Hemphill, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Henley, L.

Croft, L.

Hives, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Daventry, V.

Hood, V.

De La Warr, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Ingle wood, L.

Eccles, V.

Killearn, L.

Effingham, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

370

Lauderdale, E.

Porritt, L.

Long, V.

Portland, D.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lyell, L.

Rodney, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sandford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sandys, L.

Mancroft, L.

Seebohm, L.

Marley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathspey, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Suffield, L.

Milne, L.

Swansea, L.

Molson, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Teviot, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Teynham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Munster, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Northchurch, B.

Torphichen, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Trenchard, V.

Onslow, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pender, L.

Vickers, B.

Pennock, L.

Vivian, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wise, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 12, after ("consumers,") insert ("manufacturers,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. If noble Lords will look at Clause 3(2) of the Bill as it now is, they will find that the Secretary of State and the director have a duty to do a number of functions, including the promotion of the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users, and they have a series of other responsibilities with which, in the main, we entirely concur. They have even got in subsection (2):
"(c) to promote efficiency and economy on the part of such persons;
(d) to promote research",
and to encourage competition, and a whole series of things. It seems odd that the United Kingdom manufacturers of telecommunications equipment have been left out. Everybody else's interests seem to have come under favourable review by the Government.
Perhaps I may take the liberty of reminding noble Lords that British Telecom as it has operated over the past few years has conceived it to be its duty, with or without pressure from the Government—and as we all know pressures from governments vary both in direction and intensity—in what we can broadly call the national interest, to promote the interests of manufacturers.
I do not propose to speak on this amendment at length, because there will be other amendments which deal with the protection of British manufacturers on which I may venture to address your Lordships slightly more comprehensively than on this. It seems that the word "manufacturers" ought to go in. Perhaps it was omitted by error. Perhaps it was assumed and more or

371
less taken for granted that it would be the natural duty of British Telecom under any regime to look after the interests of manufacturers. Possibly it was omitted through inadvertence, in which case the Government have the easy remedy of accepting the amendment.
There are many noble Lords who for perfectly proper reasons from time to time speak in the interests of the City, of finance, of manufacturers, of operatives, of the professions, and so on. All these activities are perfectly proper, and I would assume that there are noble Lords here who have an identity of interest with, for example, the Confederation of British Industry. It is suitable that they should support an amendment of this kind, and in the hope that we shall receive a considerable amount of support from those who believe in promoting the interests of manufacturers I shall refrain from addressing your Lordships any further on the matter.
Lord Cockfield: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervened now, because I suspect that the noble Lord's amendment and what he has said are based on an understandable failure to follow through the particular way the statute is drafted. If the noble Lord turns over the page he will find in Clause 4(2) the words:
"commercial activities connected with telecommunications' means any of the following…and the production, supply and export of telecommunication apparatus".
If the noble Lord then turns hack to Clause 3(2) he will find that that definition is carried through into the various parts of paragraphs in subsection (2). The Greeks, of course, had a word for it. It is what they call the hrsteron proteron, which translated into the vernacular means putting the cart before the horse, but that is the traditional way that statutes tend to be drafted. I hope that with this purely technical explanation the noble Lord will feel satisfied.
Lord Weinstock: I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, concede the principle that the interests of manufacturers, even if it has not been included in the Bill, could have been properly included. But I am afraid I cannot follow him in his reading of Clause 4 with reference to Clause 3, unless he be referring to subsection (2)(h), which I find a most extraordinary provision. It says that the Secretary of State has his duties.
"to maintain and promote outside the United Kingdom competitive activity on the part of persons providing telecommunication services"—
which means, among others, manufacturers—
"or producing telecommunication apparatus in the United Kingdom".
That is to say that anybody producing telecommunication apparatus or services within the United Kingdom is entitled to the protection or the support of the Secretary of State only outside the United Kingdom, and such persons inside the United Kingdom need not be United Kingdom persons at all.
If the Nippon Electric Company set up manufacture in the United Kingdom the Secretary of State would be obliged to support them outside the United Kingdom when they are in competition with United Kingdom companies, which I find a bizarre activity for a
372
Minister of the Crown. This is not quite so impossible as it sounds. I read this morning that British Telecom, in pursuit of its licence for cellular radio, has placed its first order for communication equipment with the Nippon Electric Company and not with any British concern. This follows the placing by the Racal Company of orders for all its equipment outside the United Kingdom with respect to cellular radio without a British company—the one for which I work—having been given any opportunity to tender, notwithstanding assurances from the Minister concerned that the business would be open to competitive tender, and that the licence granted would not be allowed to act in a monopolistic way.
I cannot see that the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, covers the interests of British manufacturers, and I think that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, should be supported by a Government and a Secretary of State which have the interests of British manufacturing at heart. In this respect I draw attention to Part II (there are so many paragraphs and subparagraphs in this wretched Bill) paragraph 3 of the draft licence explanatory notes to the duty put upon the Secretary of State, which reads that he must enable British firms—British firms, not persons manufacturing in the United Kingdom—
"to establish and maintain a leading role in telecommunications".
With those words in those explanatory notes the absence of "manufacturers" under Clause 3(2)(a) in the sense suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is extraordinary.
Lord Morris: It would be a great help, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, if Clause 3(2) (b) were read with care. It simply says that there is a duty lying in the breast of the Secretary of State and the director
"to maintain and promote effective competition between persons engaged in commercial activities".
My noble friend drew our attention to the definition of "commercial activities connected with telecommunications" in Clause 4. It is those who provide
"telecommunication services and the production, supply and export of telecommunication apparatus".
Subsection (2) (h) does nothing other than require the Secretary of State and director to promote exports. It means nothing more and nothing less than that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I draw his respectful attention to the fact that this amendment is not designed to amend subsection (2) (h) but subsection (2) (a), and that it is not possible to relate the clause back—the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has referred to this—to subsection (2) (a), which I am trying to amend.
Lord Morris: I am well aware of that. Of course, the noble Lord has this particular amendment, if he wishes it, in totally the wrong place, because he is putting manufacturers together with consumers, which must necessarily be in conflict from the start. The amendment is totally unnecessary for the reasons I have just pointed out.
Lord Weinstock: With due respect to the noble Lord. Lord Morris, the Government have already

373
conceded that the parties designated as the recipients of the benefits of the promotion of the Secretary of State are in conflict with each other; that is, that consumers, purchasers and other users cannot all have exactly identical interests. While I concede that there is greater conflict if one includes the term "manufacturers" in that context, the Bill is remarkably deficient in mentioning the interests of British manufacturers and I do not see that the reference in Clause 3(2)(b) covers the point.
Lord Cockfield: I felt that as a matter of law the point was so plain and obvious that I would try to save your Lordships' time, but as it is obviously not as clear as I assumed it was I need to go into it in greater detail. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, arise on later amendments which we shall be discussing in detail. But let me take the specific amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As he says, it is an amendment to Clause 3(2)(a). I ask him to read the whole of paragraph (a) and not stop half way down, because paragraph (a) says:
"in respect of the prices charged for, and the quality and variety of".
Manufacturers are interested in all those subjects. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that manufacturers are interested in prices. They are interested in the quality and variety, but they are interested either in their capacity as consumers (because manufacturers are consumers) or they are interested in their capacity as purchasers (because manufacturers are purchasers); or they are interested in these matter as users, which is a basket phrase that appears at the end of so many lists of categories. Therefore, manufacturers, in common with virtually anybody else one could think of, are adequately covered by paragraph (a) in respect of the specific matter of,
"prices charged for, and the quality and variety of".
That is the amendment which appears in the Marshalled List.
I then went on, mistakenly, to try to be helpful. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and with the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, that the interests of manufacturers are greatly important. There is no difference between us on that at all. I was trying to be helpful because I was going outside the ambit of the noble Lord's amendment. In paragraph (b) there is the reference,
"to maintain and promote effective competition between persons engaged in commercial activities".
Those "persons engaged in commercial activities" are then defined in subsection (2) of Clause 4 in a way which includes manufacturers.
In paragraph (c) it says:
"to promote efficiency and economy on the part of such persons".
The words, "such persons" hark back to,
"persons engaged in commercial activities",
which in turn are defined in Clause 4(2) to include persons who are manufacturers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, would think that it is important to encourage efficiency and economy on the part of such persons.
We then come to paragraph (d), which says:
374
"to promote research into and the development and use of new techniques by such persons";
that is, such persons as manufacturers. Later we have, in paragraph (h), the words "to maintain and promote" to which my noble friend Lord Morris referred. In effect, the purpose there is to maintain and promote exports.
It seems to me that the interests of manufacturers, which I entirely accept are of paramount importance—I am not arguing either with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, or with the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock—are very fully covered by the clause as it is drafted. I accept that certain noble Lords believe that other provisions should be inserted relating to manufacturers, and we shall be debating those in due course. I hope that with this rather fuller exposition of the legal position the noble Lord will he prepared to consider whether his amendment is really necessary, or whether we have fully met his concern in the way the clause has been drafted.
Lord Weinstock: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for that detailed exposition of the exact meaning of the words in the proposed legislation, all of which I think I understand and appreciate. But it seems to me that the noble Lord has missed the point of my interjection, which was that it is not enough to talk about manufacturers as persons engaged in manufacture in the United Kingdom because there are such persons operating in the United Kingdom, frequently with a subsidy from the British Government to back their actitivities, merely as assembly units or as arms of foreign firms seeking entry into either the United Kingdom market or the European Community. The reference that I understand the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was seeking through his amendment and the reference that I am seeking is some commitment in respect of British manufacturers as distinct from foreign manufacturers with operations, be they large or small, in Britain.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to prolong this discussion, but the noble Lord the Minister has frequently referred to the legal position. He has developed the most convoluted argument to show that the term "manufacturers" must be understood by looking through about two pages of words to decide that "manufacturers" are in it. As he has said that manufacturers are so important and everybody agrees about that, I should have thought that he could have put the word "manufacturers" after the word "consumers", as suggested in the amendment and as supported by the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock. It would save all this discussion in such a convoluted way.
Lord Cockfield: To a lawyer as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I should have thought that the statute was plain in the extreme.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: This statute will not always he directed to lawyers. If we were discussing whether this was perfectly plain to lawyers, then perhaps I might agree with him; but this is a statute for the public, for members of the industry. We want to avoid them having to go to lawyers to decide whether "manufacturers" are here. The Government should

375
apply their minds with far more human interest to the problems of people who have to read this document. I agree with the noble Lord the Minister that lawyers will find their way through it, but we hope that this Bill will be available and will be able to he read and understood simply by the ordinary man in industry and the ordinary member of the public.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord who has deployed his legal skills to such effect in explaining the precise legal significance. I must say that I find his legal logic irrefutable; so much so that it will be necessary, particularly after having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, probably at Report stage, to provide a far more precise definition than the mere word "manufacturers" which has been inserted here. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the time and trouble that, as a lawyer, he has spent in explaining to a mere accountant exactly what this Bill means in this respect. With those pleasantries, which I hope will continue, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 13, after ("users") insert ("(including, in the case of persons who are disabled, any person who is a user in the course of his employment)")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I want to state quite clearly and immediately that in another place the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Butcher, has stated quite categorically that Condition 17 of the licence prohibited undue discrimination in the prices charged for specially-adapted equipment. This followed the very telling speech made by Mr. Alf Morris in another place on the Third Reading of the Bill, when he spoke of the unsuitability of some new telephone equipment.
What this has to do with the amendment I am moving is simply as follows. Many noble Lords will remember that just after the last war, when we started to count the cost in addition to the dead, there were tens of thousands of men returning to these islands from overseas who had lost limbs and eyes, and whose hearing was grieviously impaired. The then Labour Government set about examining the plight of these disabled men not merely to express compassion or pity but in an effort to understand, and there was established the great experiment of Remploy—an experiment in which my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx played such an important part. This made a massive contribution to those men regaining their self-respect and, indeed, a new courage to face life, and to helping them earn a living so that they did not have to be dependent on any form of charity.
There is something similar to this in what I am asking the Government to accept today. In those days (as I feel quite sure that my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx will recall) there was massive co-operation from manufacturers and massive co-operation by the National Coal Board (when it was established) and the steel industry. There was also remarkable cooperation from what was then the General Post Office with particular relation to those who had no hands, in
376
teaching them to use machinery and to use telephones and switchboards; and, if they were blind, in teaching them to use their ears because they were not able to use their eyes. Realising that there are five million of our fellow countrymen and women who have impaired hearing, we can apprecicate how lonely life can be for them and also how totally isolated sometimes they would be if it were not for the telephone. The telephone then becomes a lifeline and can represent the difference between a lonely life and a full life.
Furthermore, what a remarkable and wonderful thing it would be, paradoxical though it may sound, if those whose hearing is impaired, those whose sight is impaired or those who are blind could make a contribution within the organisation of British Telecommunications so that those who are not necessarily directly employed in British Telecommunications can live a fuller life! The General Post Office, shortly after the war, saw to it that any large organisation in industry prepared to have a telephone switchboard of a special character was enabled to employ a British soldier who had been blinded. I am positive that there is not one voice in this Chamber that will say that that was a dreadful thing to do because it did not make money and when, perhaps, instead, a more efficient switchboard could have been put in. Perhaps that is a mark of the greatness of this realm.
It was not merely a question of phones in homes but of the ability of people who were savagely and severely handicapped to use phones and similar equipment in the Post Office. And that is what my amendment is about. I do not wish to go into too much technical detail in putting the argument because, quite frankly, I do not understand some of these wonderful things. All I know is that when I see a blind person in an office anywhere in the country working such equipment, or a deaf person doing so, that is good enough for me. I hope it will be good enough for your Lordships.
One example I have been given is the need to see that everywhere there is an inductive coupler. This is a hearing aid, very cheap to instal, which can allow a person hard of hearing to do a job as well as one with good hearing. The point that I am making is that it might he a good thing (and should he a good thing) to instal these in the homes of the hard of hearing. But what a remarkable thing it would be, and an even better thing, to a degree, to have them installed in factories (as I am sure so many manufacturers would agree) so that there could be employed as telephonists, perhaps, or in some other occupation, people to whom this special aid can be of assistance. Notwithstanding what Mr. Butcher has said in another place, it seems to me that the associations for the disabled and the hard of hearing, in particular, are not satisfied with assurances. Neither am I.
I hope that I will have the support of every noble Lord in saying that Government's assurances in this particular poignant matter are not enough. They should make it absolutely clear beyond all peradventure by accepting the words of the amendment. I should like to see, ultimately, all telephones constructed in such a way as able to be used by those who are hard of hearing or who have no arms, or who have to use some remarkable device to assist them. I hope that these things will be taken into

377
consideration, as they have been taken into consideration (in my view not fast enough) over the years. I think that I ought to mention at this point that many of the aids that now help enormously the disabled were developments by British Telecom itself from the ideas of engineers working and talking together in their lunchtime break, as men do. With respect, I ask noble Lords not to get too worked up over the words "trade unionism". If you have seen such men or listened to them digging coal underground and talking of a better way to do this, of an easier way to do that or of a less dangerous way to do it, so, in British Telecommunications, they have talked about how they could help the blind, the disabled and those who were savagely hurt and disfigured.
Two of these remarkable characters were Mr. John Hart and Mr. Ron Collett, who are recognised almost throughout the world as having made a massive contribution in the field of telecommunications to aid the disabled. They are both members of the Post Office Engineering Union, and later became members of the British Standards Institute.
Research in this field, by and large, has been magnificent. I believe that our country possesses the brains; we have proved that in the past. We have provided some amazing technical devices capable of transforming the lives of the hard of hearing and enabling them to live in a new world. I hope that we shall have a united Chamber this afternoon in support, and that your Lordships will agree with the words of this amendment. They are simply in favour of this: that manufacturers will not be placed at a disadvantage because they have to pay perhaps excessive charges for having British Telecom equipment installed in their manufacturing businesses to enable them to employ the hard of hearing and other disabled people.
I think that the Government ought to write into this Bill quite clearly that decent employers ought not to be penalised and placed at a disadvantage by their competitors who are not concerned about the hard of hearing and the disabled. That is the quintessential of what my amendment suggests, and I hope very sincerely that it will have the support of noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber this afternoon.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before we launch into a long discussion about this amendment, may I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is probably knocking on a door that was opened a number of years ago. I think I am right in saying that the Manpower Services Commission will grant-aid employers to make alterations to premises in order to help to accommodate particular disabilities of people working for them. It is unlikely that any disabled person would find that he or she could not be accommodated in this way. I think that is already available; but of course I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said.
Lord Molloy: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. The voluntary organisations, the national organisations for the blind, the purblind, the deaf and the hard of hearing have all heard that argument. They have examined it; they have rejected it. How do we know that within a year or
378
two the Manpower Services Commission might not exist any more? Of course, I accept what the noble Baroness says; but it is not a 100 per cent. guarantee, and I am not asking this Chamber to give an assurance to the effect that the Manpower Services Commission will look after this. However, let us look after it by putting this specifically into the words of an Act of Parliament. That is my submission.
The Countess of Mar: I disagree with the amendment. I think this is already quite clear in Clause 3(2)(a), where it says:
"including in particular those who are disabled."
I also think that perhaps it is unnecessary that we should take 10 minutes in moving an amendment like this. We know that this Bill is going to go through the House; we know that it has some very poor qualities, and most of us are sitting here waiting to put things right. We want to do that quickly, carefully and thoroughly; and I hope that the rest of your Lordships will agree.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell: As we have heard from the passionate speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the subject of this amendment is a matter of great concern to all of us, including the Government: namely, the interests of the disabled. We have mentioned the disabled in our discussions on directory information; but this is the first opportunity that we have had to look at the provisions and the safeguards for the disabled. I am sure that we shall have not only this opportunity but also a further chance to discuss this very important matter on later amendments, which will be of interest to my noble friends Lady Macleod and Lady Lane-Fox.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that I should take this opportunity, especially after the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, to explain not only the intentions of the Government but also the provisions which are in the Bill. This amendment concerns primarily the blind. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned briefly the fascinating device, with which unfortunately I am not acquainted, the inductive coupler, and we shall have a full discussion on that in connection with Amendment No. 82 That amendment deals with the hard of hearing. However, may I concentrate on the disabled now, and especially on the blind, and leave reference to the hard of hearing until we reach Amendment No. 82.
First, I should like to explain what the Bill does for the blind, and above all for the disabled. May I make it clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that the disabled are looked after: and, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, mentioned, provisions for helping such people are contained in Clause 3(2)(a). We are determined to ensure that the disabled should continue to be able to obtain telecommunications equipment adapted to their needs. We have included provisions in the Bill and the licence to achieve that.
I should like to give a little further explanation, in view of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Clause 3(2)(a) requires the Secretary of State and the director, whenever they carry out their

379
functions under the Bill, to act in a way that they think is calculated to:
"promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users—(including, in particular, those who are disabled) in respect of the prices charged for, and the quality and variety of, telecommunication services provided",
and apparatus.
This is the first time that the interests of the disabled have been recognised in legislation. This means that when the Secretary of State grants a licence to a company such as, for example, British Telecom to run a telecommunication system and he decides on the conditions of the licence, he must take full account of the interests of the disabled. The director must also take full account of the interests of the disabled when he checks that telecommunication operators are obeying the conditions in their licences. The Secretary of State must also take into account the interests of the disabled when he sets the standard for telecommunication equipment and when making the arrangements for it to be approved.
For these reasons, the duty laid down in Clause 3(2)(a) is a wide-ranging one and I do not see any need to add to it. It covers the interests of all disabled persons, both at work and at home, and it does not single out any particular group. We intend that the duty laid down in this clause will be fulfilled in particular through the conditions of the draft BT licence. Concern has been expressed that once BT becomes a public limited company it will no longer wish to supply apparatus for the disabled to use, because this will no longer be profitable.
I want at the outset to allay that concern. I say quite categorically that BT will continue to look after the needs of the disabled. BT itself has given clear and public assurances on this point and has recently announced a special programme of action in the interests of the disabled to co-ordinate all the considerable work which it does at present. In any case, we have included conditions in the licence which will oblige BT to do so.
May I draw the Committee's attention to these conditions. First, Condition 1 obliges BT to provide throughout the country all telecommunications services for which there is a reasonable demand, and of course it includes demand by the disabled both at home and at work. Condition 2 applies the same obligation in rural areas. Condition 6 ensures that the emergency 999 service is provided free of charge to all, including those who are disabled and who may need to summon assistance.
In addition to these general conditions, there are also conditions which are specifically for the disabled. Condition 31 covers the general needs of the disabled at large, and requires BT to consult with the director about the arrangements which it makes to provide telecommunications apparatus to meet all reasonable demands by disabled persons. BT has said that it will continue to supply a range of apparatus at least as wide as its present range. Under this condition, the director will be able to influence just what apparatus is provided.
In order to assist the director in finding out the requirements of disabled persons—be it the blind, the
380
deaf, the impaired in speech, the physically handicapped or others who are disabled—he is likely to set up an advisory group for this purpose under Clause 52, which we shall be discussing in due course. My noble friends Lady Macleod and Lady Lane-Fox will be seeking to add their weight to the discussion on that clause. Condition 31 ensures that BT will participate in the work of any such group.
Conditions 32 and 33 are specifically for the hearing-impaired. Condition 32 obliges BT to continue to make available telephones which incorporate the device mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Molloy—the inductive coupler. It also covers telephones with amplifiers, which are just a little different from the inductive coupler, enabling people with impaired hearing but without hearing aids to use the telephone. Condition 33 of this little group requires BT to work towards installing in all public call boxes apparatus—for example, the inductive coupler—to enable the impaired of hearing to use public telephones.
Having said that I should not discuss that aspect till we reach Amendment No. 82, I am afraid that I have strayed a little. But we shall be able to discuss it much more widely when we come to that amendment. Condition 34, which I mentioned earlier in our discussion on directory inquiries, ensures that the blind and other disabled persons who, because of disabilities such as dyslexia, purblindness and other problems of sight cannot use printed directories, can obtain directory inquiries free of charge.
I turn briefly to the employment of blind persons. The concern about the employment of blind persons underlies this amendment and it also probably touches Amendment No. 40. There are about 1,200 blind telephonists in the United Kingdom who will be covered by the provisions of the Bill. These blind telephonists use private exchanges which are already specifically modified to suit their needs. What happens, in practice, is that the visual signals which are usual with private exhanges are replaced by tactile and silent signals which are perceptible to blind people. The Government want this very valuable source of employment to continue. We want to preserve the existing job opportunities and, if possible, to create new ones in this field.
As my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who has considerable experience in this field, pointed out so succinctly, public funds are already available. I think that my noble friend pointed out the practical aspect of these public funds which are available through the Manpower Services Commission to assist in the purchase of specially adapted apparatus which will enable a blind person to be employed.
We all realise, and the provisions of the Bill recognise, that technology is changing and new models of private exchanges are coming on to the market. The organisations representing the blind want to ensure that these new models which are now being developed are designed so that they are capable of being adapted for use by blind persons. The Government accept the importance of this objective, and the Department of Trade and Industry has had constructive discussions with both the manufacturers and the Royal National Institute for the Blind as to the best way forward in this area of the advance of technology.

381
As a result of those discussions, it has been agreed that from a date to be decided all new operator-controlled private automatic branch exchanges will be required to be adaptable for use by blind operators. This we believe—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and your Lordships will agree—will be a major step forward in this area. It will safeguard existing job opportunities in this area for the blind and it is a better safeguard than is given to blind operators at present. A consultant is being appointed to work on drawing up a list of what are named call features—this technology is a little beyond me; the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, nods and I shall seek an explanation from him later—and functions for private branch exchanges which are necessary for these exchanges to be able to be used by blind operators.
I have gone on at some length but I think, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and because of the interest expressed—which we always find all round the House when we are discussing the needs of the disabled, of whatever impairment—that your Lordships will forgive me. I hope that the explanation which I have given has enabled your Lordships to have a better understanding of how we intend to protect the interests of the disabled, in fulfilment of our specific duty which is set out in Clause 3(2)(a). We believe that the duty is fully adequate and that Amendment No. 37 is not necessary. Amendment No. 40 is attached to that amendment and we believe that No. 40 might be counter-productive, because by focusing on one particular group it could also focus on others. I hope that I have been able to show that the Government have taken on board everything that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has said and the concern which is felt, not just by the noble Lord himself but by all of your Lordships, and that they take very seriously the duty to protect the interests of the disabled and their continued employment.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the Committee has listened with great interest to my noble friend's general dissertation on the care which the Government are taking of the interests of the disabled in relation to this Bill. But I should like to ask him a much smaller and narrower question, which relates very directly to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Clause 3(2)(a), to which he quite rightly referred several times, imposes a duty on the director of providing for the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users and then goes on to specify particularly those who are disabled. The amendment relates to disabled people who are in employment and the question I want to ask is this. For the purposes of Clause 3(2)(a), where a blind person or a disabled person is employed by a company—and it is the company that rents or hires the apparatus from British Telecom or somewhere else that is the user, because the disabled employee is obviously neither the purchaser nor the consumer—does the word "user" in Clause 3(2)(a) cover not only the company which employs the disabled person but also the disabled person himself who is an employee? It is simply a question of the construction of subsection (2)(a). If there is any difficulty over this, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can help us.
Lord Lyell: I believe that the noble Lord's mind has been very clearly read by my advisers, because I am informed that disabled persons in employment are classified as "users" of the apparatus, as my noble friend suggested. I hope that his doubts on that particular score are removed. A blind person operating a specially-adapted PABX will be, for the purposes of Clause 3(2)(a), a "user" of the apparatus—even if somebody else (such as the company, British Telecom or another supplier) owned that apparatus. If the blind person was operating it, he or she is qualified as a "user" under Clause 3(2)(a).
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his explanations and for the categorical assurances he has given. We on this side of the Committee were certainly very concerned with the employment aspects of blind people in particular. I would really be carping if I did not accept the noble Lord's assurances—his categorical assurances—as being very welcome indeed.
I was also interested to hear the noble Lord commend to us—or I thought he was commending—Amendment No. 82. Before we pass from this amendment, will the noble Lord tell us whether that was in fact the case and that he will be accepting Amendment No. 82?
As far as Amendment No. 37 is concerned, the Minister has gone very far along the road to giving the assurances which are necessary not only to this side of the Committee but to many people and organisations outside. In the circumstances, it may very well be that my noble friend Lord Molloy will consider whether he should withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps I may briefly stress to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I hope I did not indicate that we will be accepting Amendment No. 82. I hope I said that we would if we could leave the discussion of inductive couplers and various other apparatus which may be used for those who have hearing impairments, and the discussion concerning the advancing technology of such apparatus, until we come to Amendment No. 82.
If it is I who deals with Amendment No. 82, I hope that I shall receive the same reception which I have obtained from the noble Lords, Lord Molloy and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but we shall have to wait to see. I have not commended Amendment No. 82; I have just held out further bait until we listen to the debate on Amendment No. 82.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall wait with bated breath for Amendment No. 82.
Lord Molloy: I am most grateful, as I am sure the national associations will be, for the very fulsome way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has responded to my supplications. He went into great detail, which must have been the result of much research and for which we are all deeply grateful.
If I appear to feel very strongly about these matters, it is because I was involved in trying to find work for soldiers after the war who had lost their hands or legs, or who had one eye missing, or whose hearing had gone. I still have the great privilege of being a national

383
vice-president of the Disabled Drivers' Association. One of the finest honours I have ever received in my life was to be able to work in another place (as I still do whenever I can) for the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association. I am therefore more than grateful for the detail which the noble Lord has given this afternoon. We shall compare what he has said with the words in the Bill. There will be a Report stage, and on the basis of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 14, after ("disabled)") insert ("and without discrimination against customers on the basis of geographical location").
The noble Lord said: I believe this concerns the battle which has already been won in this Committee. In view of the reminder given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this afternoon that subsection (1) takes precedence over subsection (2), I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 16, after ("provided") insert ("and existing telephone operator services, including the directory enquiry service").
The noble Lord said: The position here is not quite so satisfactory. We received an assurance from the Government that they would consider this matter when it arose under Amendment No. 26, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. On the basis of that assurance, however—to which the Government may be sure they will be held—I will not move Amendment No. 39.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
5.16 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) to promote the interests of blind employees in the United Kingdom by making provision for apparatus to be readily adaptable for their needs;")
The noble Lord said: Most of the arguments for this amendment have been made in the debates on previous amendments. What really concerns us is that privatisation should not mean a sort of Gresham's Law, whereby lack of concern will drive out understanding and compassion. From what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said on the previous amendments, I hope that British Telecom will co-operate with the national institutions for the blind and disabled: that they will consider the fact that digital switchboards can be installed without any charge to manufacturers; that the Kinsman Console, which provides synthesised voices, will be made available at no extra charge; and all the other matters which can help blind people.
I believe that we should bear in mind the blind man's prayer, which says:
"Light—the prime work of God—to me is denied,
And all the various objects of delight annulled".
We can nevertheless try to restore some of the faculties and delights which the author of that beautiful poem
384
had in mind when it was written, and it will be a great honour for us to be able to do so. I hope that will be the spirit in which the Government will approach this amendment.
Lord Lyell: We are very grateful for that quotation from poetry or literary flowery language presented by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in moving this amendment. The noble Lord himself suggested that I covered most of the ground with which this amendment concerns itself in the remarks I applied when speaking to Amendment No. 37. I am afraid that I do not have much more to say in reply to this particular amendment. I will stress that the Government certainly accept the importance of the objective set out in Amendment No. 40.
Indeed, the Department of Trade and Industry has had, and is continuing to have, constructive discussions with manufacturers and with the Royal National Institute for the Blind. As I have explained, and as the noble Lord is aware, technology is improving and pushing into new frontiers. I believe your Lordships will agree that that is the best forum at which to ensure that the interests of the blind are represented, particularly so far as the employment of blind persons in private exchanges is concerned.
Lord Molloy: In view of the noble Lord's comments, there is some encouragement for the national associations. We only want to make very certain that the Government make sure that the blind are always provided with encouragement as well as practical innovation in maintaining their dignity, by allowing them to earn their living. That is not too much to ask. I have to tell the Committee that at the moment they are apprehensive as to whether or not the Bill really means to do this. It may be that the licence does.
I accept what Lord Lyell has said. I think that in this particular instance also the Government's heart—there is not much of it, I admit—is in the right place. I hope as the Bill proceeds, and when the words of the licence are examined, if necessary they will be prepared to see the national association to clear up any points of apprehension they might have. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is essentially put down to obtain a little more information from the Government. Your Lordships will recall that this particular subsection (2)(b) enjoins the Secretary of State and the director
"to maintain and promote effective competition between persons engaged in commercial activities connected with telecommunications in the United Kingdom".
As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has already reminded us, under subsection (2) of Clause 4 of the Bill,
"'commercial activities connected with telecommunications' means any of the following, that is to say, the provision of telecommunication services, and the production, supply and export of telecommunication apparatus".
This is a responsibility. I want to know, and I am sure the Committee would be interested to know, just how the Secretary of State and the director are going to go about this maintenance and promotion of effective competition. I would be most grateful to know what is in the Government's mind on this. How much time do they expect them to devote to this; what priority do they propose to give to it, and, as I say, what methods do they propose to adopt? How many people do they propose to employ upon this particular part of the project? I am sure it would he for the advantage of the Committee if the noble Lord would enlarge on this a little so that he can expand on the bald legalities of the Bill.
Lord Somers: I hope the noble Lord when he replies will give some sort of assurance that this desire for competition, which to the Government seems a sort of magic that is a cure for all evils, will not be pressed at the expense of service to the individual subscriber. That is, after all, the main object of the Bill, and I hope that this idea of competition will not interfere with it.
Lord Mottistone: Now that I see that Lord Bruce's amendment is by way of being a probing one, would the Government like to combine this with my Amendment No. 42, or would the noble Lords on the Front Bench care to answer Lord Bruce and come later to No. 42?
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): I think it might be convenient to take Lord Bruce's amendment first and then look at the amendment proposed by my noble friend. First of all, may I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that of course the structure of Clause 3(2) shows that this matter of competition is one matter to be taken into account along with others. We have had a fair discussion in relation to Clause 3(2)(a) already. So there is no question of 3(2)(b) riding roughshod over anything else.
Having said that, I have to say that we believe that subsection (2)(b) and the matters there dealt with have a very important part to play in improving service to the subscriber and making certain that the subscriber gets a better service than he would if the competition to he maintained and promoted were allowed to die away.
We believe—and this is central to the policy of this Bill—that the people of this country should be given the opportunity to exercise a choice when they buy telecommunication apparatus or telecommunication services. If consumers cease to be captive of a single monopoly supplier they can buy the apparatus and the services they themselves want and not what the monopolist decides to give them; secondly, they will be able to choose apparatus and services which are cheaper or of better quality, or which have any special features they want. I doubt if this aim would be challenged anywhere. Our view is that competition is the best way to widen customer choice, to lower prices and charges, to increase efficiency and to improve quality. Monopolies are very apt to produce restricted choice, higher prices, poor quality and inefficency. I know very few who can see no scope for improvement in British Telecom's present services.
386
So far as the future is concerned, it is important to see how matters have developed so far. The Government are already permitting competition, and this, I believe, is having a measurable and beneficial effect. First of all, so far as telecommunication apparatus is concerned it is quite apparent that a much bigger range of apparatus is available now than was, and we believe that this process will continue. So far as telecommunication services and the running of the telecommunication systems needed to provide these services are concerned, also we have here licensed Mercury. This development has never been attempted before, and we are moving very cautiously to ensure that British Telecom's ability to provide a universal service is not damaged and to give British Telecom time to adjust to the competition. Noble Lords will know the features that have been built into the arrangements for that purpose.
Since the licensing of Mercury we have seen two visible benefits: first, on the busiest trunk routes and on international routes where Mercury will compete with it, British Telecom has been able to reduce its call charges; secondly, waiting lists are now down to some 1,500, almost negligible compared with the total demand. There are other areas in which competition may be developed, which will lead in our view to a check on prices and to an improvement in the quality and efficiency of the service. Accordingly, we believe that this part of Clause 3(2) is an important one, and I understand from what the noble Lord said that he does not intend to press this amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. I must say, however, that I was not entirely convinced by his argument, because as far as we are concerned subsection (2)(a) is not really compatible with subsection (2)(b). We do not believe that you can properly promote—unfortunately not protect, but promote—the interests of consumers and at the same time insist that there shall be competition in the telecommunication network itself, which is what is in fact being proposed. Indeed, it is difficult at this stage to understand why subsection (b) should he there at all, bearing in mind that the Government said that they will not interfere with the monopoly enjoyed by British Telecom for, I think, between seven and nine years. Therefore, it seems to me that paragraph (b) is not necessary for the time being.
It may become necessary if the Government wish to proceed with introducing competition into the network itself, but that is not what they are proposing now. Their present proposal is to convert a public monopoly into a private monopoly. Therefore, having said that, how on earth are they proposing to introduce competition into the private monopoly that they are creating? Paragraph (b) needs further thought. We are not happy about it at all.
The Lord Advocate mentioned competition from Mercury. Of course, there is competition from Mercury, but it is artificial competition arranged for by the present Government in the 1981 Act. But whether it has improved to date, and whether it will improve in future, the total telecommunications service and network throughout the country is open to doubt. Indeed, it is open to doubt because it will injure

387
British Telecom itself; it will perhaps injure its ability to invest in the future and it may well hurt the telecommunications industry in this country. What Mercury intends to do is not for the sake of the public good or to improve the telecommunications network. Its intention is to make profit. It will do so at the expense of British Telecom and, therefore, at the expense of the consumer. What Mercury is doing and will do in the future is to take the cream off the commercial service and leave British Telecom with the skimmed milk.
For the ordinary domestic subscriber, and some business subscribers, that means a worse service and very likely higher charges as well. It will also make it far more difficult for the new company to discharge the duties which the director will be putting upon it to provide certain services such as the emergency services, services for the blind which we have just discussed, and so on. Therefore, we are very worried about this paragraph (b), which in our view conflicts with the duties placed on the director in paragraph (a) to promote the interests of consumers. I certainly would like to hear more from the Lord Advocate before I would be happy about withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said something which I think crystallised the difference of view between the two sides of the Committee on this issue. He said—and he will correct me if my recollection is imprecise, but I do not think it is—that Mercury would take some business and some profit away from British Telecom and that that, therefore, would take some benefit away from the consumer. That seems to me to encapsulate the total difference of view between the two sides on the background to this amendment. If your Lordships think about it, Mercury will only take business from British Telecom if it provides a service which is more attractive in one way or another—be it price, service or efficiency—than that provided by British Telecom. Otherwise the consumer will not go to it. Therefore, if it takes some business from British Telecom it will be giving a better service to the consumer, and therefore benefiting the consumer. That summarises the complete difference of view.
Those of us on this side of the Committee on the whole believe that competition breeds efficiency and good service to the customer. We believe that if one knows that one's job, the value of one's shares or the success of one's company depends on providing for the customer something that the customer is prepared to pay for, that is one of the most powerful stimuli for efficiency, hard work and good service. Noble Lords opposite, on the other hand, tend to have in many of these directions a hankering for the rather cosy comfort of monopoly. Indeed, the only criticism that I personally have—if I may be allowed to go wider than the provisions of this Bill for a moment—is that it does not seem to me to go sufficiently far in securing competition. The noble Lord referred to seven or nine years before anything of substance happens. The figure of 97 per cent. of telecommunications business remaining with British Telecom has been quoted. I find it a little difficult to see how there can be any great
388
measure of competition between 97 per cent. and 3 per cent.
However, this paragraph in the Bill is at least an indication of the good intentions, as I see it, of Her Majesty's Government and that the Government do feel that one of the methods to be used—not necessarily the exclusive method—to promote greater efficiency and greater prosperity in the telecommunications industry is the promotion of competition. I therefore regard paragraph (b) as one of the most important provisions in the Bill.
Lord Somers: I am afraid that I have no technical knowledge of telephony but I must say that I find it extremely difficult to understand how one will get competition in a system which is entirely automatic, as we now have in this country. I am not talking of business firms, or anything like that, but of the ordinary private subscriber. When there is only one network one must connect oneself to that network and must do so via the local automatic exchange. Until we have either a separate network with its own automatic exchanges or a separate instrument in everyone's house, how do we get competition?
Lord Molloy: Much of what I was about to say has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, so I shall be brief. I wish to answer the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and his general approach to this side of the Committee. He quite naturally and properly eulogised competition and told us all what a wonderful thing competition is. However, a few things slipped his mind. Since this Government of competition came into office unemployment has become the highest it has ever been since records were kept. Bankruptcies are at the highest level since records have been kept. In short, what competition generally has produced for this nation up to now has been nothing but wretched misery for millions of our fellow-countrymen.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As I said on Second Reading—and I hope we do not go into Second Reading again on this amendment—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I intervene for a moment? If I strayed for a moment into Second Reading matters I think the noble Lord will agree that I was subjected to great temptation from the Front Bench opposite.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sorry I cannot respond to the temptation offered to me by the noble Lord. I said on Second Reading that the economies of Eastern Europe are a demonstration of the weaknesses of state monopoly over the entire economy. I do not believe that monopolies are good for economic growth. However, if we make that general principle and reach that general agreement, we now have to apply it to this particular occasion and this particular instance.
As has been pointed out, if Mercury were offering a national service in competition with British Telecom, there might be competition in the sense that one understands it. But if one is creating in this Bill a private monopoly with 97 per cent. of the network in

389
its hands, and one has an agreement that one's major competitor will get only 3 per cent. for the next seven years, one can hardly say that one is creating the ideal conditions of monopoly that one seeks. This is the difficulty about applying these general principles to this Bill. I agree that it will be possible to introduce a greater degree of competition, and I hope this will happen in the provision of apparatus for the telecommunications industry. I hope that the consumer will benefit from that degree of competition.
Regarding the network, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate knows very well—because like me he lives in Scotland—that the degree of competition from Mercury which is going to emerge in Scotland in our life-time is very remote. Mercury have said they will concentrate on the areas of high population and cheap service and for the next seven years at least will not undertake any expansion beyond Birmingham, Manchester, London, et cetera; so that the kind of competition which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wishes to see applied—I support him in this connection—is not applicable under the Bill before us.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said. I was rather saddened to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, whom I admire so much, once again enunciate this magic virtue of competition. As a mere consumer suffering from the appalling effects of several competitive firms who have tried to do some building work for me, I can say that this is an example of the most highly competitive and the most inefficient industry there is. Let us get right away from this strange idea that competition brings efficiency, cheapness, and the best thing for the consumer; certainly this is not proven.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am tempted to prolong this debate, perhaps unnecessarily. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, appears to pin his faith on a monopoly for protection of the consumer. Whatever experiences the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has had of difficulties arising for the consumer in certain types of competitive business, I strongly suggest that consumers have a good deal of experience of not getting the best service from monopolies. All that we are saying in this clause is that along with other duties the Secretary of State and the director have to exercise the functions which they have under this Bill in a manner in which he—in the case of the director—and he—in the case of the Secretary of State—considers is best calculated to promote the interests of the consumer, and so on, and then:
"to maintain and promote effective competition between persons engaged in commercial activities connected with telecommunications in the United Kingdom;"
That is by no means restricted to the network. I have already mentioned the point in relation to apparatus, that it covers all aspects. What I have said about the network is that maintaining and promoting effective competition is not the only thing to which one has to have regard. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter indicated that perhaps this had not gone far enough. I can see that that point of view is perfectly possible; but in the remarks I made earlier I sought to explain that in this area one has to move forward cautiously. It is perfectly possible that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of
390
Gryfe, notwithstanding that like myself he has the privilege of having his home in Scotland, would benefit from the existence of Mercury in that occasionally, even from Scotland, he may make a trunk call on the route which has had its rates affected by the existence of Mercury. One need not necessarily have a Mercury telephone at one's bedside to get the benefit of some competition in the system.
One cannot achieve everything overnight in this kind of business. The monopoly has been built up over quite a long period—70 years or so. It would be utterly stupid to try to change the whole situation overnight, but on the other hand it is equally wrong to neglect the benefits that have already come. They should be seen as benefits which can develop in the future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord has not been able to enlarge on this matter to explain just how these efforts are going to take place. All he has really done is repeat the sort of magic formula that competition itself takes care of all these problems. The noble and learned Lord is rather less perceptive than his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who want to make money out of this deal of privatisation. They have been selling the prospective investors the advantages of taking shares in a private monopoly in succession to a public monopoly which already has produced astonishingly good financial results, has produced an astonishingly good performance, and has given the consumer charges on a scale significantly less than those of most of their competitors in the West. It has provided one of the most efficient telephone services in the world.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer want to encourage private investment into British Telecom on the basis that they are not going to have a public monopoly, which then becomes a private monopoly, interfered with unduly. Unless the noble and learned Lord is very careful he is going to cause a flutter in the dove-cotes in the city. If he is going to say that the private monopoly will not be as effective as it has been held out to be, he is not doing his right honourable friend the Prime Minister any kind of service at all. He knows perfectly well that all this talk about the promotion of competition within the network itself is so much hogwash; it means nothing at all.
He has given no indication, either, as to how he proposes to wave this magic wand of competition over the other activities that are defined in the definition section of Clause 4(2). He has done none of these things. All he has done is wave the word again. This is not satisfactory and I think we must have an opportunity of taking this much further.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I do not regard it as too harsh a criticism for the noble Lord to say that I am less perceptive than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before we vote on this amendment I must say a few words in reply to the disagreement voiced over my previous remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is a great exponent

391
of private enterprise and he implied that I was a monopolist. Nothing could be further from the truth; I am not, especially since at one time I myself engaged in small business. But there are certain things that are natural monopolies. One of them is a telecommunications service, and therefore I believe that for the consumer it is better to retain that monopoly but to retain it under public ownership. That has been our stance and will remain our stance. We shall return to it after the next general election, when a Labour Government is elected, to ensure that it reverts to a public monopoly; make no mistake about that.
So far as Mercury is concerned, we must understand that it is not real competition. Mercury is not a real competitor. It is a privileged competitor, because it is being allowed to cream off the congested services and yet has none of the liabilities that British Telecom has. That is why it is not real competition. It is induced competition, and it is induced in order that certain people, certain organisations, can make profits at the expense of the public monopoly, British Telecom. We must bear in mind those points when talking about competition, and that is why I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bruce has decided to press the amendment.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Jacobson, L.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Bishopston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bowden, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Caradon, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Phillips, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shackleton, L.

Ennals, L.

Shinwell, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stallard, L.

Falkender, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Fulton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stone, L.

Galpern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hall, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

392

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Attlee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Mar, C.

Avon, E.

Marley, L.

Aylestone, L.

Marsh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bellwin, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Belstead, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mayhew, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Milne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molson, L.

Cathcart, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Monson, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Croft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Newall, L.

De La Warr, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Portland, D.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Feversham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sherfield, L

Gowrie, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Spens, L.

Grimond, L.

Stamp, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stedman, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hertford, M.

Suffield, L.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Terrington, L.

Hunt, L.

Teynham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trenchard, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Vickers, B.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wardington, L.

Lyell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 18, after ("competition") insert ("and prevent anticompetitive practices as defined in section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1980 or restraint of trade")
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has invited me to move this amendment on his behalf. The amendment is one that might have been debated with the last one, but judging by the way that that amendment was put by the noble Lord, Lord

393
Bruce of Donington, I thought it was a probing amendment. However, it seems that it was not treated in that way. I also thought that it was a Committee stage amendment and not one that would lead to a repetition of Second Reading speeches from practically every side of the Chamber. I thought that on an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, expressed urgency to get to Amendment No. 82. If we spend a long time on amendments such as the last one, we shall not reach Amendment No. 82 with the speed which we, as well as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would wish. So let us have a little less of these Second Reading speeches and let us have a little less duplication from noble Lords opposite.
Very briefly, because a lot of the relevant remarks were made in the last debate, the object of this amendment is not to remove Clause 3(2)(b); it is to strengthen it. It is to strengthen it because we believe strongly that the director must be given the greatest possible powers to ensure, among other things, that there is fair competition. Fair competition is fair for the competitors—we, in the market—and fair for the customer. To be fair to the competitors in the market is not easy to achieve, as many noble Lords have said, when one competitor is so much more vast than the others.
We have a great deal of evidence, although I shall not bore your Lordships with it now (I could well introduce it at a later stage if necessary), of misuse of monopoly power by British Telecom, particularly in recent months—some of it extremely unprincipled—which has prevented smaller rivals from becoming established in the market. I think, in fairness to British Telecom, that a lot of it is inadvertent in the sense that it knows not what it does. British Telecom is so big that it does not understand the effects of the actions that it takes. The purpose of the amendment is to protect the small competitor.
I shall not spend long explaining the other purpose of the amendment because it was well argued on the last amendment. It is to protect the customer. I was interested to hear the implication made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that providing for the care of the customer was somehow at variance with competition. The complete reverse is true. The fact is that we, as customers, particularly over the past 20 years, have suffered badly from the inefficiencies inadvertently created by the large monopoly that is British Telecom. There are many examples in the electronics field, but, again, I shall not bore your Lordships with detail. Colour television is an instance where competition has meant that prices have gone right down and people have obtained value for money. It is not just a question of choice, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said. It is one of value for money. This comes about only through competition.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said that he could not understand how it was possible to have competition in this area. I shall not bore your Lordships by dealing with that matter now. I shall be dealing with it under Amendment No. 130. I hope we shall get to the amendment nice and quickly.
Lord Somers: I wonder if the noble Lord—
Lord Mottistone: I would be grateful if the noble Lord would wait for one minute. I should like the Committee to consider this amendment with care. It is a strengthening of paragraph (b) which is thoroughly necessary. I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will see his way to agree to it. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I wish merely to remark that I have nothing whatever to say against competition. I am as much in favour of it as the noble Lord. I was merely puzzled to know how it would be achieved with a single network.
Lord Mottistone: I shall explain when we reach Amendment No. 130.
The Earl of Halsbury: This is the first of the telecom liberation front amendments to which I have put my name. I wish to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. I feel that there is an element of undisclosed self-interest on the part of the Government in removing competition. When you nationalise something or denationalise it, you have to carry on with the same managerial levels as existed originally. They have a natural background of the career structure in which they have been brought up. Those within British Telecom have been brought up in a monopoly and will remain monopoly-minded for a long time. The Government have some self-interest in leaving them a little monopoly-minded. The more monopolistic they are, the higher the price they will fetch in the open market. This could be a kind of unholy alliance. I do not attribute it to a consciously unholy alliance. It is one of those things that happen when the left hand does not quite perceive what the right hand is doing.
The fact that British Telecom quite likes the Bill, and has publicly said so, would indicate that in the dialectic between the Government and British Telecom it must have got its own way on a number of talking points. I am therefore on the side of stiffening it all along the line. There is a residue of this undisclosed self-interest to lead it. It is rather like the old story of the woman who had an illegitimate baby and said, "Oh! but it's only a very little one". There will be only little bits of monopoly left in the structure of the Bill. I want to see them removed altogether. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The position, as I think my noble friend appreciates, is that Clause 3(2)(b) puts the Secretary of State and the director under a duty to maintain and promote effective competition. The director cannot promote effective competition if he condones anti-competitive practices. Therefore, I suggest that the provision to which we were referring in the last amendment indicates that the particular amendment now before us, with which I shall deal a little more fully than just saying what I am saying now, is not necessary. I accept, however, that it is not sufficient to condemn anti-competitive practices in general terms. It is necessary to have powers of investigation and then powers to cure.
We have already provided the director with specific powers. We believe that under the Bill taken as a whole

395
the director is really a strong policeman to ensure that the duty mentioned in Clause 3(2)(b) is effectively carried out. Under Clause 7(5) he can fix licence conditions to deal with anti-competitive practices by licensees, and under Clause 16 he can issue orders requiring licensees to stop breaching such licence conditions. Under Clauses 12 and 15, he can modify licences to deal with newly discovered anticompetitive practices.
In addition, under Clause 49 of the Bill the director is given powers to investigate anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act and to cure them either by accepting undertakings or by making references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which can lead to orders. He will also have powers to make references under the Fair Trading Act where anti-competitive practices are engaged in by a monopolist or by a group of bodies acting in the same way.
The amendment is, I suggest, not necessary. As drafted, it would also, I think, be inconsistent with the structure of the legislation. My noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will see that Clause 3(3)(b), in effect, disapplies Clause 3 where the director is carrying out his functions under Clause 49, that is, when he is, among other things, investigating or seeking to cure anti-competitive practices under the Competition and Fair Trading Acts. This is because such investigations are carried out against the wider criteria defining the public interest which are set out in the Fair Trading Act. This amendment would not, therefore, affect the way in which the director will deal with anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act of the Fair Trading Act.
There is the point that, as a matter of principle—and I do not deal with the detail of the drafting—the draft suggests that anti-competitive practices should be prevented. In practical terms such an operation has to be carried out by watching to see whether anticompetitive practices have developed and then, after investigation, taking steps to cure them. Let me give an example. If a small firm engages in selective price-cutting to capture new business from a big firm, that is a pro-competitive action. But if a monopolist like, for example, British Telecom were to engage in selective price-cutting to block a small firm from entering the market, that would be an anti-competitive practice. In such circumstances all that can be done is to investigate and identify the anti-competitive practice and to stop it once it has been identified. Of course, thereafter action will be taken to prevent that particular practice recurring. But the use of the word "prevent" is perhaps a little difficult in the circumstances.
However, I hope that I have said enough to indicate to my noble friend and to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that we have made very considerable provision in the Bill to carry out what this amendment seeks to strengthen.
Lord Weinstock: Can the noble and learned Lord tell me whether his interpretation of what would be a normal competitive act by a small firm and an anticompetitive act by a big firm is somewhere defined in law? Or is he merely giving us his personal
396
interpretation of what the words mean? Clause 49 does not seem specifically to support him in that regard.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I gave an illustration of the reason why one must look at the circumstances to see whether any particular act is an anti-competitive act. It is not easy to tell simply from looking at the act in isolation whether or not it is so. One must look at the circumstances. One must look at how it is practised and by whom it is practised. I am not suggesting that this particular example is enshrined in the legislation. In fact, Clause 49 brings in the criteria from the Fair Trading Act, which are fairly general in character.
Lord Monson: I should like to support the amendment. Surely most of us, whatever our political affiliation or lack of affiliation, would endorse the maxim, "If there is one thing worse than public monopoly, it is private monopoly". If this amendment, or something very like it, is not agreed to, then I fear that a private monopoly or, at best, a private duopoly is what we are likely to end up with in the long term at the expense of the consumer.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Spens: I have looked at Clause 49, and I do not think that it meets our point in any way. It says:
"If and to the extent that he is requested by the Director General of Fair Trading to do so, it shall be the duty of the Director"
to investigate these matters. However, he shall do so only.
"to the extent that he is requested"
to do so by the Director General of Fair Trading. We want to make this a function; we want to make quite certain that the Director General of Telecommunications will be aware of his duty to make sure that these anti-competitive practices are stopped. They have to be stopped fairly quickly; otherwise, the small firm which might be subject to those practices will be put out of business. Therefore, we want to make it a duty.
I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, of the reply he gave to the first amendment which I moved, which was Amendment No. 5. He said at column 1316 on 9th February:
"My noble friend Lord Mottistone indicated that there might well be developments which he had in mind which ought to be performed by the director."
This is one of those developments. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, went on to say:
"If there are such fields of activity, the right thing is to include them in the Bill. Having done that, they would then be covered by the specific phrase in the Bill: 'assigned or transferred to the Director by or under this Act' ".
That is exactly what we want to do. We want to make quite certain that it is an additional function of the Director General of Telecommunications to make sure that anti-competitive practices do not occur.
During the debate on the previous amendment there seemed to be the idea that there was not any competition around. Perhaps I might point out to noble Lords that our liberalisation group has been in discussion with seven or eight different trade associations, all of whom are competitors in one way

397
or another and are subject to this Bill, and in particular they are worried about the situation of "big brother"—British Telecom. We want to make certain that the situation is put under the control of the Director General of Telecommunications so that he can protect the interests of the small maufacturers and the small users who are in competition.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wonder whether I could venture a comment here. While I understand very well what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has just said, I wonder whether—and this also applies to my noble friend Lord Mottistone—he is falling into the habit, which has afflicted a number of speakers in the debates on this Bill, of saying something twice and believing that as a result of repetition he makes it stronger.
I personally believe that the words in subsection (2)(b) make the Government's intention reasonably clear. I can understand that there may be some who suspect that the Government have included those words for purely cosmetic purposes. I am not one of them. I always put a very great deal of effort into putting the most favourable construction upon anything that a Government say they want to do. Even in the case of the last Labour Administration I frequently did my best, but it was a very great effort. However, in this case let us suppose that the Government's purpose in putting these words into the Bill was not merely cosmetic but that they genuinely wanted to inspire as much competition as possible. If that is the case, I would be satisfied. But to those who say that the purpose is purely cosmetic, I would say that it would not matter what words we put into the Bill—for example, the words put forward in the amendment—they would still achieve nothing, I believe.
While I am on my feet I should like to take the opportunity to say that I am the chairman of a subsidiary of a multi-national company which makes components here and sells them to all and sundry. I am not in the least influenced by that fact in the views which I hold about this Bill. But lest I be thought to conceal something, I would prefer to reveal that information now. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, when he comes to reply, will not be pushed either by his noble friends or by anybody else into introducing words into the Bill for purely cosmetic purposes. There are enough there already.
The Countess of Mar: While I have every sympathy with the noble Lords who have put forward the amendment and I am very much for small businesses, I think that perhaps their fear of "big brother"—British Telecom—is a little dwarfed by what should be their real fear; namely, competition from abroad. We have AT & T sitting on the doorstep, and the Japanese market sitting on the doorstep. Unless we have a relatively strong British Telecom, there will he no room for small businesses or, for that matter, British Telecom.
Lord Morris: I believe that this amendment is unnecessary because by virtue of the provisions of
398
Clause 49 the director general of Oftel in effect embraces the Director General of Fair Trading.
Clause 49(3) clearly says that:
"sections 2 and 10 and 16 of the Competition Act 1980"
are effectively taken over by him. If one reads this clause further, it is clear that the Competition Act covers this very point. Of course, I appreciate that the Government are on the horns of a dilemma here in that in a way the very issue of a licence is in itself an anti-competitive practice.
However, this is purely an enabling Bill and the Government cannot definitely specify within the Bill, or indeed within licence conditions, how they see the future because, precisely like everybody else, they are not readers of crystal balls, and nor should we expect them to be.
The Earl of Halsbury: I fully take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and I wonder whether, arising out of the noble Lord's reference to Clause 49(3), the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would tell me where the compelling element is in the Bill or in the 1980 Act, to which reference has been made, which requires the transferred powers to be used?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: First, it is worth noticing that under the statute the words of Clause 3(2) impose a duty on the director, and of course the Secretary of State:
"to maintain and promote effective competition".
These seem to be very clear statutory words to carry a duty to have that in mind in discharging the functions which the director has in the Bill. I believe that that is as strongly put as it could be.
To deal with the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, as I understood him, he did not get past the first words of Clause 49(1), but even in this Bill, clear as it is, it is necessary to read the rest of the provision before concluding what its scope is properly to be. If one looks at Clause 49(2) it says:
"There are hereby transferred to the Director (so as to be exercisable concurrently with the Director General of Fair Trading).—(a) the functions of that Director under sections 44 and 45 of the 1973 Act".
Subsection (3) again begins with the words:
"There are hereby transferred to the Director (so as to be exercisable concurrently with the Director General of Fair Trading) the functions of that Director under sections 2 to 10 and 16 of the Competition Act 1980 … so far as relating to courses of conduct which have or are intended to have or are likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with the production, supply or acquisition of telecommunication apparatus or the supply or securing of telecommunication services; and references in those sections and in section 19 of that Act to that Director shall be construed accordingly".
Therefore, in relation to this subject matter these functions are transferred to the director of Oftel so as to be exercisable concurrently by him and by the Director General of Fair Trading. So I venture to suggest that the point which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, was putting is not applicable in this situation.
I find it hard to see what further powers could properly be given to the director of Oftel to deal with this particular problem. The general principle is stated in Clause 3(2)(b) and then all the necessary powers are given to him under Clause 49. As I said, this particular

399
amendment does not do anything at all in relation to these particular powers because of the provisions of Clause 3(3)(b). Having said all that, we believe that what my noble friend seeks to achieve is very fully achieved by the provisions that we have.
Lord Bruce of Donington: It is becoming a little indelicate for the Opposition to interfere in the lengthy argument that has suddenly broken out on the Government Benches and which so far has taken 25 minutes, of which not one minute of time has been occupied by this side of the Committee. May I quickly remind the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—who preceded his second Second Reading speech by an admonition against those who would venture to embark on such a task—that the matter was covered by Clause 49—a fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was good enough to confirm when he spoke. We on this side have no interest in this dispute that has broken out between supporters of the Government, and we should like to get on with the business.
Lord Spens: The reason that I do not think that Clause 49 is satisfactory is that it does not give any duty to the director. The duties are conferred by Clause 3, and that is why we should like to see this amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone: To noble Lords opposite I would say, "touché!"; but at least my Second Reading speech was not as long as theirs! I entirely understand what my noble and learned friend has said. I think that he has made it very clear and I am delighted with what he has had to say. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Peyton would agree that sometimes it is worth tabling an amendment which says a little more in order to get something from the Government. With those words, may I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) to promote the interests of small and emerging businesses providing multifarious services associated with telecommunications;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 43 which is to promote the interests of small and emerging businesses and to have that as a duty for the director of Oftel. This is the other half of the protection which unfortunately we were not able to achieve on the previous amendment on the anti-competition practices. However, we believe that we should give the director of Oftel a positive duty to look after the interests of small and emerging firms and to protect them in the face of the privileged positions which this Bill will give to British Telecom, to Mercury, to Racal, and to one or two other firms. We believe that there should be an additional duty to do this, and I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a suitable amendment to be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I should like to say a few words at least in support of the spirit of this amendment. Whether it is essential or correctly drafted, I do not
400
know. However, I fully realise that the amendment is concerned with promoting the interests of small businesses which are engaged in providing services in connection with telecommunications. But I do not think it is going too far outside the amendment also to draw attention to the immense importance which the revolution in communications can have for small businesses in general.
We are now reaching the end of the time when it is necessary to have large conglomerations of businesses and huge concentrations of workers and machinery. With new telecommunications, small groups of workers can provide very useful services and production. We should emphasise the obligations—as I should like to call them—of the director and the Secretary of State to ensure that small businesses are encouraged and helped by contracts from the main company and that they also undertake various services which they may be well equipped to perform. I should also like to think that it is a duty of the director to ensure that training, where possible, is encouraged.
I have some experience of representing rather remote areas, and the new telecommunication revolution should have great possibilities for such areas. One of the great difficulties of getting businesses to go up to the islands of Scotland is, for instance, the immense cost of transport, travel and freight. Therefore, you want services or products which have a low transport cost compared with the value of the ultimate product. That is exactly what many of the new services and products connected with electronics have.
Already in one of the islands of Orkney there is a small electronics business which so far has managed to keep going and even make a profit. But there is a wide feeling still that industry must be concentrated in the old industrial areas or the South of England, or in the valleys of Fife, when this revolution should make it possible to spread it all over the country and into the islands. I think, in passing, that Parliament so far has been a little complacent about the costs of the Falkland Islands. It is difficult enough to pay for freight and transport in Shetland and Orkney, but the subsidies that are going to have to be paid to keep the Falklanders going are terrifying.
I hope that anyway the spirit of this amendment will be accepted. Perhaps I should say, as scrupulous honesty is expected, that I even hold some shares in this electronics company, but not enough, I fear, to make a fortune. But it is significant that there is an electronics company in Orkney, although very small, and just below my house there is the house of a man who made a certain amount of money as an ordinary fisherman. He is among the few genuine entrepreneurs whom this country produces. If you go down and have a cup of tea with him you will find all sorts of mysterious screens showing the price of silver in New York, and what is happening in the Gulf, because he has interests in the Gulf and in New York. He has interests in oil in Canada. He is able to keep in touch with all this from Orkney.
I know that this is not directly what this amendment is about, but there are two sides to this. There is the possibility of making the high cost components or offering high cost services with little handicap of freight, and on the other hand there is the spread of

401
information which makes it possible to run things in places which a few years ago would have been thought impossible. I hope that now we are entering a new industrial era we shall heed the views of Henry Ford, who wanted the technology of the motor-car spread as widely and as cheaply as possible, and not the views of some of the directors of the national airlines who seem only to require the largest and most expensive aircraft that they can lay their hands on, which can only possibly be available to those who can command expense accounts, Therefore, I support this amendment in the name of small businesses.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I trust that the noble Lord who moved this amendment and the noble Lords supporting him will bear in mind that businesses are comprised of persons, and the persons appear to be covered by Clause 3(2). notably at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). It would appear on the face of it that the amendment is quite unnecessary. With that brief intervention, I would invite the Government to explain further.
Lord Torphichen: I like this amendment a little, but only a little. Perhaps I might be allowed to hang some comments and a couple of questions on it which would not sit very well elsewhere. The amendment seeks,
"to promote the interests of small and emerging businesses providing multifarious services".
et cetera. By that I take it not really to mean any manufacturing concern hut purely businesses which will earn their living by providing value-added network services, or something similar.
If your Lordships look at Clause 5 you will find that any of these small businesses which wish to try to provide such services are damned three ways from the middle and hack to each end until they have a licence if they so much as attempt to provide any sort of telecommunication service. There are some good reasons historically why Clause 5 has been written to prohibit the provision of telecommunication services, rather than to prohibit specific acts such as misuse of the radio spectrum, or draping wires across a road, which it effectively does but which it does while encompassing almost every other possible thing one can do or would wish to do with a telephone.
In the first place, the wording of Clause 5 which would obstruct this amendment and probably keep it from having any effect whatsoever was derived from the earlier Telegraph Acts and earlier Post Office Acts which were intended to protect the Post Office monopoly, and the easiest way to do that was in the wording of Clause 5, which prevented one from running any sort of communication service, no matter what. The Government must of course prevent people from misuse of the radio spectrum. They must of course prevent people from stringing wires across the road or other people's properties without their permission, but they do not need to do it by covering not only the specific mischiefs to which I have referred but a wide wasteland of possible business opportunities which these many services proposed in this amendment may provide. I am sorry, I have lost myself slightly on the wording there. The Government wish to prevent misuse of the radio spectrum. They wish to prevent physical obstruction or misplacements
402
of plant. Also by the wording of Clause 5 they prevent the whole range of legitimate business opportunities which this amendment seeks to promote.
If one were to amend Clause 5 sufficiently to unleash these possible business opportunities, one would have to chew it up in small pieces, mix it up, and spit it out in a completely different form. That would be taken by the Government as a hostile act towards this Bill. Therefore, one cannot do that. The only thing one could do is to ask the Government for a promise that when this Bill is law they will set about writing some classes of licence which will, while staying outside the prohibited areas of misuse of the radio spectrum and the like, legitimise all the opportunities that this amendment seeks to promote.
If they were to set about re-writing those class licences in the form of a licence that anyone might use, not through some licensing procedure whereby one would apply to Swansea or the Post Office to ask for one's licence but simply by means of writing a class licence which would then be used freely by the businesses concerned, then effectively Clause 5 would have been re-written in regard to those class licences.
I suggest, therefore, that the correct thing for me to ask the Government to do is to take note of this amendment and its intended effect, and perhaps in five years' time, when they have learned better, rewrite Clause 5 in terms of prohibition of misuse of the radio spectrum and prohibition of misuse of public land or private land for laying telephone lines or the like, and hence achieve the same effect through law and not through vague promises as in this amendment.
Lord Spens: I do not think that there is any conflict between Clause 5 and my amendment because Clause 5 is confined to telecommunications systems which are defined in Clause 4 and which are limited to the system,
"for the conveyance, through the agency of … energy, of sounds"
and other things.
Lord Torphichen: If I may come back briefly, to run almost any of the services I envisage are promoted by this amendment one would almost certainly have to make some form of attachment to the British Telecom system. I am not talking about physical attachments, but Clause 5 does not permit any form of attachment and use of the system without a licence.
Lord Cockfield: As far as small businesses are concerned, this is one of those fortunate matters on which harmony rather than discord prevails. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, admits that he was once a small businessman. It would be unkind of me to ask whether it was a competitive or a noncompetitive business that he ran. My most distinguished predecessor in my present office, Lord Lever of Manchester, introduced a large number of measures to assist small businesses. My Government have introduced more than a hundred such measures, and when I was a Minister at the Treasury I was a member of a team which tried to carry on that extremely good work. So we all start, therefore, from the point of view of goodwill towards small businesses.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Torphichen will not mind if I say that I will study his speech very

403
carefully. He said that it went rather outside the ambit of the amendment. I will write to him. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, says. The important question we now have to face is not whether we ought to do something about small businesses, but what is the most effective, practical way of doing it. I should like to suggest that the best course would be to build upon Clauses 52 and 53.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is well aware of the fact that Clause 52 already provides for the establishment of an advisory body for Scotland, which will, no doubt, be only too happy to consider the numerous and interesting problems that he raised related to the Highlands and Islands. I should like to suggest that we establish such a body relating to small businesses under Clause 52. It will be the duty of such a body to advise the director on any matter, first, in respect of which any of the director's functions are exercisable; and, secondly, which is referred to it by the director or on which it considers it should offer its advice. It is, therefore, a very broad canvas. If we establish such a body it will enable representatives of small businesses to be right in there at the centre where they can exercise their influence most effectively.
Clause 52 goes on to provide that an annual report shall be produced, and Clause 53 says that the director shall deal with such a report in his annual report to the Secretary of State, which is a document that in due course can be considered by Parliament. If the noble Lord, Lord Spens, would agree to pursue the matter along these lines, and if he would care, after the very interesting debate we have had, to withdraw his amendment, I will table amendments myself before Report stage to deal with the matter in the way that I have suggested.
Lord Spens: I am most encouraged by the speech of the noble Lord the Minister, and I am very pleased that he is prepared to table these amendments himself. The reason I say that is because I have seen a draft of them but it has been spirited away to the Bahamas and I would have had to ask the noble Lord to send me another copy. In any event, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 21, after ("efficiency") insert (", innovation").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to introduce the word "innovation" into Clause 3(2) where it says:
"to promote efficiency and economy on the part of such persons".
I am submitting that it should read:
"to promote efficiency, innovation and economy".
I did not think that I would have such great support in seeking to amend a Bill as having before me the words of the Prime Minister, who, if I may say so, has made such splendid statements from time to time about the great importance of innovation. I am the president of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors. We have always maintained that "innovation" is a word that
404
should be brought out as clearly as possible on every occasion, in order to bring it to the notice of the public and industry so that innovation can exist.
In my hand I have a Green Paper that was presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister in December last. It is a most valuable and splendid document which I, as president of this institute, support strongly. It is entitled Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation. The introduction to this report, which was produced by the chief scientific adviser to the Cabinet Office, was written by the Prime Minister. In that she refers to the desirability of creating new and successful businesses on a sufficient scale so that they will solve the present problems to a great extent. She goes on to say:
"The application of innovative new techniques to their processes, designs and administration is vital to survival and expansion".
I ask rhetorically: what could be more positive than that in encouraging the use of innovation in a Bill of this kind? It is not implicit in the Bill; it is not sufficient for the Government to say that it is implicit in words such as "research", and so on, later, because innovation, as the Prime Minister understands so well, involves not only dealing with new techniques and their processes and designs, but also with administration.
I do not want to delay the Committee much longer, but your Lordships will be aware also, in view of the debate last week introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, of the first joint report by the chairmen of the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development, affectionately know as ACARD, and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, going under the title ABRC. There are many indications in this report of the desirability of having innovation, of introducing innovation, and also of creating a climate for innovation. Indeed, a section of this report is headed, "The right climate for innovation". It states:
"While it is encouraging to see a wider understanding of the importance of innovation, the ability of companies—particularly the small ones—to innovate at the present time is seriously inhibited"—
by world recession. Then, in paragraph 4.29 it says:
"Nothing, of course, will influence innovation more than the prospect of a receptive market".
It goes on to say how important it is,
"establishing the right fiscal, financial and regulatory climate for innovation".
I hope the Government will consider that in view of the emphasis which the Prime Minister and so many other people have put on the desirability of innovation in its widest sense, including not only research and development but administration, they will be kind enough to allow this amendment to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I rise briefly to express, I am sure on behalf of all noble Lords on this side of the Committee, our very great gratification that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, should number himself among the warmer admirers of the Prime Minister. While we would not challenge his wisdom in espousing and giving voice to her views, nevertheless I wonder whether the Prime Minister herself would advocate the inclusion of hunks of speeches in statutes. Merely because she has happened from time to time to bless the word "innovation" does not seem to me to be an

405
immediate command which we must all obey to insert the word in the first available Bill to come before us. I very much hope that your Lordships will throw out neck and crop, this unnecessary amendment. It will add nothing. Efficiency depends upon innovation, and for us all to be seeking, as we constantly are during these proceedings, for yet another word to add to the verbiage of these Bills is an unacceptable practice.
Lord Morris: I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken. I hesitate to argue with so elegant an advocate as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. However, if one looks at the Bill itself one sees perhaps the most perfect definition of "innovation"; namely,
"the development and use of new techniques".
If that is not innovation, I should like to know what is! I suggest that Clause 3(2)(d) is in the Bill for that reason.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the accusation is one of selective quotation, there are very few of us in your Lordships' House who would be absolved from having done so at some time or another in our careers. I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. I quite understand that it is not possible in legislation to have every nuance of every word written into the clauses and phrases that are used in legislation. It seemed to me that he made an effective point in saying that the need for innovation goes beyond the question of research and techniques into the way in which businesses are run. On the previous amendment noble Lords were all falling over each other to show how sympathetic they were to small businesses—and many of your Lordships from personal experience. I am a small businessman, as well, and I appreciate the necessity for innovation in the running of a business as well as in the research and technical side. For that reason, we support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think it is clear that everybody who has spoken supports the idea of innovation. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has certainly quoted amply from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister showing how wisely she supports this particular idea. I think that the observation that my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil made a little earlier about the desirability of not saying everything twice would apply here. What we have done is to go so far with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, as to go well beyond what he wants. We have spelt out in very clear and full terms exactly the need to go in for innovation and we have used these words to describe it:
"to promote research into and the development and use of new techniques by such persons".
There is no suggestion there that the new techniques are to be related only to telecommunication apparatus or things of that kind. It is sufficiently general to cover every aspect of the person's business and includes administration and anything else that such persons might use which would be advantaged by having new techniques applied. I say to the noble Lord that we have entirely agreed with his sentiment and have expressed it even more fully than he would have done so himself. In the light of that, I hope that he may be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the noble and learned Lord, I anticipated getting a reply of that kind indicating to me that it was implicit that the word "innovation" was there in its general spirit. But I want something more than that. I want to see the word "innovation" stressed wherever possible. Of course, I anticipated—and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his speech—that he would point out that he was so happy to see me supporting the Prime Minister. My support of the Prime Minister is only limited; but it is nevertheless very sincere in the views that she has about the encouragement of small businesses, the encouragement of innovation and the desirability of protecting inventions by intellectual property, as will be dealt with in the next amendment. Although the spirit of the answer from the Government goes quite a long way, in my view it is not adequate to rely on innovation being implicit in the words of a Bill of this kind. I shall test the feeling of the Committee.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60: Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bishopston, L.

Milverton, L.

Bowden, L.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Segal, L.

Denington, B.

Shackleton, L.

Diamond, L.

Spens, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stallard, L.

Ezra, L.

Stedman, B.

Falkender, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Fulton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stone, L.

Galpern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L,

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

John-Mackie, L.[Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kearton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cockfield, L.

Auckland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Avon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Belstead, L.

Croft, L.

Bessborough, E.

De La Warr, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elton, L.

407

Enniskillen, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Forteseue, E.

Molson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Glanusk, L.

Morris, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Mottistone, L.

Gormanston, V.

Mountevans, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

Gridley, L.

Onslow, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orkney, E.

Pender, L.

Halsbury, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hanson, L.

Portland, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hives, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Inglewood, L.

Soames, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Teynham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trenchard, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mar, C.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Vickers, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wardington, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Lyell: I believe it has been agreed through the usual channels that this will he a convenient moment for the Committee to break for a short period, which this evening I understand will be 55 minutes. I therefore beg to move that the Committee stage be now adjourned until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.5 until 8 p.m.]
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) to enable, by licensing and radio frequency allocation, private sector service providers, to establish and maintain new advanced technology terrestrial and satellite radio telecommunication systems;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is making the point that with new technology we must have the flexibility for new ideas to be introduced and for radio frequencies, in particular, to be freed for use by private sector companies of which there are a growing number and which are currently particularly starved of radio frequencies. It is not entirely a radio frequency matter, but that is the most important aspect of it, because that is where the shortage applies.
It has been suggested that one megahertz of radio spectrum equals about 10,000 jobs. That may sound
408
rather strange to your Lordships, but if you take into account manufacture and service providers that is the sort of order of what might come about if we had the necessary freedoms which, we hope, would be generated by adding a new paragraph to subsection (2). There are other factors, but at this stage of the game I shall rest my case on that. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I had not intended to intervene on this amendment; but, surely, one of the very considerable problems that we face in discussing radio frequency allocations in particular—and these problems are allegedly enhanced by satellite frequency allocations—is that these are agreed at international conferences. One of the very real problems which we have faced in this country is that at one stage we were—dare I say it?—not as forcefully represented in these international conferences as we ought to have been. We asked only for what we needed, instead of what every other country in the world did which was to ask for three times as much as it needed, with the result that we had only one-third of what we needed, on the usual principle of scaling everybody down. Thereafter, until recently, it has been up to the Home Office to allocate those frequencies in the appropriate quarters.
The trouble was that the allocation was not made in accordance with international decisions, particularly over the frequencies which were available for radio broadcasting on VHF, and the frequencies up to 108 were not available for radio broadcasting to enable a sensible allocation to both the BBC and the ILR stations. This has caused considerable problems in the past, because people who should not be there at all had been sitting on frequencies from which they should have been moved years ago. As it is, it looks as if we shall not get a reasonable allocation of frequencies in the radio spectrum until 1990 or perhaps even thereafter.
I have always been told that it is impossible to move these because of the very high cost of doing so. I think that I was able to surprise people in a certain department by informing them that the Metropolitan Police had suddenly moved all their frequencies outside this radio spectrum, without any problems at all and at very little cost, if you assess the cost of replacement of the equipment over a period. So this is not a simple matter and it is one which I hope the Government will consider. I also hope that the amendment will not be pressed, because it oversimplifies a highly complex problem which will bcome an even more complex problem when we come to the gigahertz involved in satellite broadcasting generally.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The Committee will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who has very considerable specialist knowledge of these matters, for his intervention in the debate. It is unfortunate that more energetic efforts were not made in the past to obtain a greater allocation at the various Berne conferences that have taken place. But we are faced with the present position. I do not know how, on the assumption that this amendment were carried, the noble Lord would be able to increase the allocation that we already have, and I do not know how he would

409
be able to reapportion the small amount of the radio spectrum that we are allocated. I shall be glad to have his views on that.
The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that these were matters for the Home Office and that it was the Home Office which in the past has been responsible for our representation at Berne. I certainly feel that we ought to provide an adequate amount of frequency bands to meet our requirements, although I am not at all sure how this could be done, with particular reference to the private sector providers, without interfering with the very essential services that have to be accommodated within the existing bands. I am not talking only of BT; I am talking of the various defence services and so on.
Could the noble Lord give me some indication of what the prospects are of increasing our allocation internationally? If he does not think that feasible or possible within the foreseeable future, can he say what avenues are open to enable him to satisfy the requirements of this amendment, even on the assumption that it is socially desirable, which at the moment I am not at all sure that it is? Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us a little further.
Lord Torphichen: Two noble Lords have spoken to the effect that at times the Home Office has not sufficiently fought our case in the international arena for allocations of frequencies. That is probably not really true to say. The fact is that—as in a number of other international bodies with one vote per nation—as the number of third world small nations has grown, the "one nation, one vote" principle has become less sensible and less effective and has militated against the interests of industralised Western countries. But that is not at all part of this amendment.
The amendment appears to be asking the Government to favour the mobile radio suppliers and the like. Their problem is that that part of the Home Office which controls the allocation of frequencies is a very small department with a very important job to do—and perhaps not sufficient prestige with which to do that job. The interest groups ranged against it are large and powerful. If the Radio Regulatory Department to whom the job falls wishes to take a bite out of the BBC, the BBC is a much larger animal than the regulatory department. If it wishes to give British Telecom a lesser allocation than British Telecom would like for their mobile radio frequencies, then, again, British Telecom is a larger animal than the Radio Regulatory Department. The department is also in the position that it can never please everybody. Everybody wants a share but the department can provide it to only a limited number of people and organisations.
This amendment might possibly push the Government in the right direction, but as with all vaguely worded promises made by amendments, it will take more than that. It will take some fairly active intervention by the Government to give the people responsible for allocation the necessary political muscle to override the trivial uses of the radio spectrum which have more clout. I am thinking of senile and dying uses such as the 405 line television service which, after 40 years, will still be using
410
frequencies, until the end of this year at any rate, which could well be used for better purposes. It is up to the Government to take administrative action and to push a bit after this Bill has gone through.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: After listening to the supporters of this amendment, I perhaps ought to start by saying that this amendment (or at least remarks made by members of the Committee) impinges to some extent on amendments which are to follow. I am thinking particularly of Amendment No. 56; that might provide a more appropriate opportunity to talk about the role of the Radio Regulatory Department than this amendment does. I hope that when I have spoken to this amendment, other noble Lords will feel that also. I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Torphichen that the Radio Regulatory Department has now been transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Trade and Industry.
Having listened to my noble friend move this amendment, I note that he wishes to achieve two aims. First, it seems that he wishes to combine the function of granting telecommunication licences under this Bill with the function of wireless telegraphy licensing under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. Secondly, he wants the combined licensing function to be used so as in some way to facilitate the establishment of advanced technology terrestrial and satellite systems. I must tell the Committee that the amendment will do nothing to achieve the first objective, and it is not necessary to achieve the second.
With respect, I believe that my noble friend misunderstands the purpose of Clause 3. It does not confer any functions on the Secretary of State or the director in the sense of enabling them to do anything. What it does is set out the considerations which it is their duty to have regard to when exercising the functions specifically transferred or assigned to them under Parts II and III of the Bill. If my noble friend wishes to make changes to the Wireless Telegraphy Acts so as to confer new functions on the Secretary of State or the director, it will he necessary for him to put down detailed and specific amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Acts to enable them to do the things he wants them to do. I should add in passing that the amendment to Clause 47 which has been put down does not achieve this effect; it merely declares that the director has a duty without giving him the function.
I have to say that, if the noble Lord were to put down amendments to Part VI of the Bill so as to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, the amendments themselves would need to be of very great complexity. Furthermore, as I have said, the Government have recently transferred responsibility for regulation of the radio spectrum. This transfer ensures that responsibility for licensing telecommunications and the radio spectrum is held by one Secretary of State and by one Government department. The Government do not see any merit in splitting apart responsibilities which have so recently been joined.
Turning to the second purpose of my noble friend's amendment, I find it very difficult to establish precisely what he is trying to achieve. He seeks to

411
confer some special advantage on "private sector service providers" but, once we have privatised BT, that term will cover all telecommunication operators except, perhaps, Government departments, local authorities and the nationalised railway, gas and electricity undertakings—which have their own telecommunication systems, but not for the purpose of providing services to others. He refers to new advanced technology terrestrial and satellite systems without specifying what is meant.
The Government are already working hard to promote the provision of advanced services. In these debates there will be frequent references to cellular radio in due course, which is the most advanced form of terrestrial radio telecommunications system now available, and one which is more efficient in its use of radio frequencies than existing private mobile radio systems. The Government have made special arrangements to ensure that small private operators have access to these systems to provide advanced data transmission and other value added services.
The Government are also working to ensure the rapid development of satellite radio services. As the Committee will know, we have licensed Mercury to provide the full range of domestic and international conveyance services including those involving satellites. This is a radical departure in the direction of both competition and private sector involvement in satellite communications; none of our European partners and no government outside North America has gone anywhere near as far as we have done already.
One problem with satellite communictions in a small country like ours is that any satellite service is automatically one which spills overseas to other countries. Satellite services automatically become international services and we need to take account of the views of other governments. We are, for example, working hard to ensure that Mercury gains recognition by overseas administrations. But this will be a long process and we do not plan to license any other satellite services until at least 1990, when the policy of licensing only two major national carriers will be reviewed.
Clause 3 of the Bill already contains provisions requiring the Secretary of State and the director to have regard to the matters which appear to cause my noble friend concern. Clause 3(1)(a) ensures that they both exercise their function to secure that telecommunication services are provided to meet all reasonable demands, which extends to cover terrestrial and satellite radio services. Under Clause 3(2)(a) the Secretary of State and the director have a duty with regard to the promotion of the use of new techniques, which must mean the same things as advanced techniques.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that the amendment does not achieve its objectives and is itself unnecessary. The amendment itself is also seriously defective in attempting to use Clause 3 to confer a function. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will clarify one point for
412
me. I have a note here about the RRD, which started at the Post Office, went to the Home Office, and is now at the DTI—and I am not sure whether it will be transferred to BT under this Bill. In any case, Amendment No. 56 on page 5 of the Marshalled List appears to transfer the function of the RRD to the director of Oftel. Can the noble Lord tell me whether when we come to Amendment No. 56 he is going to say that this matter has already been dealt with in the debate on Amendment No. 45A? If so, we ought to take the two together to some extent. I may have my facts wrong; I am not sure.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: As I understand it, that is not the whole purpose of Amendment No. 56. We shall be taking this matter quite a lot further on Amendment No. 56 and I think things will be revealed to him then.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am greatly obliged.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his very full reply, and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken, even though the noble Lord, Lord Howard, appeared to me to support me but said in the end that he did not. I was not seeking to embark on a long frequency battle; it is perhaps unfortunate that I quoted that example, but they were the first papers that came to hand. I fully take my noble friend's point about the unsuitability of the presence of it. A lot of what he said is of great interest, in particular his encouragement to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Acts even though he says it is extremely difficult. I think we might have a good look at these and see if we cannot use them to better advantage than is presently the plan. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: Amendment, No. 46, is a paving amendment, and with the leave of the Committee I wish to discuss Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 together.
Amendment No. 47: Page 3, line 37, at end insert ("; and").
Amendment No. 48: Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to satisfy demands for public call boxes without regard to their profitability and only with regard to social needs, especially in areas of social deprivation and in rural areas.").
In particular, I would wish to discuss Amendment No. 48, which enjoins the insertion in subsection (2) of Clause 3 the function to satisfy demands for public call boxes without regard to their profitability and only with regard to social needs, especially in areas of social deprivation and in the rural areas. For a large part of the Committee's time we have been discussing the point of view of the ordinary consumer, and we have had in our minds in the main the ordinary telephone subscriber. In our country at the moment there are some 4 million people unemployed. There are in total nearly 7 million people living at a level determined by supplementary benefit. In short, a very substantial proportion of our population are not blessed with the means to enable them to subscribe for and pay for a telephone.
I suppose that most of us in your Lordships' House, are so used to the easy facility afforded by the telephone that we tend to take it for granted. But there are millions of our citizens outside the network altogether who have no facility in their homes to make calls or to receive them, which from our point of view is a convenience—something, as I say, we tend to take for granted. For people such as these, the deprived section of the population, the public call box, or occasionally the call box in places of refreshment of a suitable character, represent their only means of entry into the network. And that is only one way, because they cannot be expected to hang around existing call boxes in the hope of receiving a call from somebody at a time of which they are unaware.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I intervene? I wonder where the noble Lord gets the figure of millions of people. It has been established in your Lordships' House during the course of this Bill that 80 per cent. of all households in this country have a telephone.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I should not like to put a figure on the number of individuals. As the noble Baroness says, there are about 80 per cent. of households with telephones, but that still leaves 20 per cent. of the households without any kind of installation at all. The figures are not of vast importance. If there are 20 per cent. of the households without a telephone, that still implies a very considerable number of people without facilities. They are not the only people who are deprived. The ordinary citizen, even though he may have a telephone in his own home, very often wishes to use a call box, and particularly in case of emergency: for example, if he is stranded in a rural area or in an area in which it is difficult to obtain access to an ordinary private subscriber. The public telephone call box is a most important installation from the point of view of accessability to the network.
What this amendment seeks to do is to make quite sure that the economic criterion taken by itself is not the sole criterion by virtue of which telephone boxes are established. It has been estimated, I believe, that about £750 worth of calls have to be taken in order to permit a call box to break even. That is on the system of accounting that is already installed in British Telecoms. I understand, though by what mysterious means I am not quite sure, there is a proposed revision of the way in which BT does its accounting, and in particular the way in which it allocates its costs. What impact this would have on the ascertained profits or losses of call boxes I do not know and I am unable to quantify. However, I think for the time being we can assume that that is the figure which is required. I am given to understand it equates roughly to twenty 10p calls a day. Other figures can be supplied, but that is the figure with which I have been provided.
Quite clearly, if public call boxes are only installed as and when they yield a profit, there are not going to be any more installed; and if the number of call boxes that make a loss—and most of them do—are going to be sharply reduced, it means that the public are going to suffer. There have been cases where call boxes have been removed even under the present regime.
414
Moreover, there is the whole question of the emergency use of telephone boxes. They are vital in some cases, particularly in sparsely populated areas, or in deprived areas without existing telephone facilities readily available. They are required in emergencies of all kinds—accident, fire, or whatever it may be. In short, the public call box is a very important facility indeed, a very important installation as part of the network, and we want to see that this demand is properly satisfied. The existing arrangement—and this is largely confirmed by what is laid down in Condition No. 11 of the draft licence—will permit the new company, or will require British Telecoms, to remove any kiosk that takes less than a minimum figure, which is to be ascertained by BT in collaboration or otherwise with Oftel. The suggestion at the moment is—and the noble Lord can dispel it if he wishes—that the limit has been fixed so that if the total takings fall below some £750 per annum then, prima facie, British Telecoms and/or the successor company will be permitted to remove that call box.
We do not think that is satisfactory. We are, of course, well aware that the existing regime in British Telecom has been operating under financial constraints. We are also aware, however, that the existing set-up in British Telecom is susceptible, through the Secretary of State or even direct, to public pressure. Therefore, had things remained as they were, as the fortunes of BT prospered, as they have been doing increasingly over the past six years, so progressively the financial pressures inhibiting them from installing further call boxes would have been removed. We could have looked forward if it had not been for this somewhat ridiculous Bill, on the assumption it is carried, to an era of progress in this field. We could have looked for the installation of far more public call boxes for the convenience of the deprived areas and for the greater convenience of the rural areas, as well as to a very much larger number of paying subscribers.
That was the vista based on any impartial examination of the progress as shown in the BT accounts and looking at the matter purely from a financial standpoint over the past six years. That vista has now changed. The main drive, the principal propellent, of the new BT set-up when it is privatised will be to yield dividends to its shareholders and achieve, in terms of financial growth, a figure which, combined with its prospective yield on shares, will make it an attractive proposition to the investment institutions, insurance companies and likewise who may he persuaded to invest in acquiring shares in British Telecom. The drive will be to make a profit. The drive to make a profit is not always (and it is often completely opposite to) a genuine social endeavour to satisfy public need.
Those are the constraints within which the new setup will have to operate. The only way of preventing this will be to insert provisions in the Bill that make it necessary, whatever the result may be in terms of loss to the new company, for call boxes to receive the priority which is determined by the real local need. We are well aware of course that needs are very difficult to assess. We are well aware that in the extreme there could be demands that would put telephone boxes

415
where, strictly speaking, they were not absolutely necessary. That may well be so; but these are always subject to the social disciplines which are implicit in the ordinary democratic process, whether at local or at national level. Therefore, when one says "regard to social needs" one means those needs that are agreed by most reasonable people as being needs that are appropriate to the requirements of the local population, both in ordinary social terms and in terms of providing emergency communications in times when they are necessary, whether for fire or for violence, or for whatever it may be.
We hope, therefore, that within this perspective it will be possible to add this to the clause, laying down not a fixed marker which would impose unreasonable obligations on any company or monopoly, whether private or public, but a certain minimum requirement of reasonableness in making sure that throughout our country there are sufficient call boxes to enable all reasonable needs to be met. I beg to move.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Morris: To make a 13-minute Second Reading speech on a simple, not to say facile, amendment is an abuse of the Committee stage. I will avoid that temptation myself. One of the joys of this Bill is that it will speed the promotion, production and supply of wireless telephony, and thus free the poor subscriber from the necessity of having to use these hideous and smelly telephone boxes. Anyone who encourages the growth of what the noble Lord called "progress in this field"—the growth of more telephone boxes—is, if anything, doing the subscriber a disservice. The sooner we get away from being dependent upon the call boxes the better, as far as I am concerned.
Lord Ezra: I support this amendment because I believe that in an area such as that of the telecommunications service there is an element of social obligation, just as there is an element of social obligation in the supply of railway and other basic services. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in moving the amendment, has made it quite clear that care will have to be exercised in determining what "need" is. There can be circumstances in rural and remote areas, and areas of social deprivation as indicated in this proposal, where there is a need for having telephone boxes which might not necessarily be profitable. So I hope that the spirit of this amendment will be accepted and that it is also accepted that there is an element of social obligation in the provision of such a basic service as telecommunications.
Lord Milverton: I rise to support the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. If one is living in a rural area, and has been for any amount of time, one knows that there is a need for these call boxes. There are people who need them because they do not have a private telephone. My noble friend spoke as if the fact that they were vandalised was a reason for not having them. The fact that they are vandalised is not the fault of British Telecom. That is no reason to stop having them. They should be available because there are people who need them in rural areas and, no doubt, in urban or built-up
416
areas. Therefore, in spirit—and more than in spirit—I support the amendment. I hope that the Government will see how they can meet it to ensure that we have call boxes and that they are not slowly phased out.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I shall speak very briefly because I do not want to intervene at this late hour. Although I should have thought everyone in the Committee would support the principle of the amendment, surely it is covered in subsection (1)(a). Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
Lord Glenarthur: May I say at the outset that the Government are fully aware of the concern expressed about the continued provision of public call boxes. We, too, are determined that call boxes shall continue, and Clause 3 as drafted, and as my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve says, together with the draft BT licence, contains very clear provisions to achieve this.
Before turning to the detail of the amendment, perhaps I can explain how these provisions will work. Firstly, Clause 3(1)(a), which has just been mentioned and which we have discussed, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State and the director to carry out their functions in the best possible way to secure that public call boxes are provided throughout the United Kingdom, so far as is practicable, to satisfy all reasonable demands for them. This is the first time that public call boxes have specifically been mentioned in the British Telecom legislation.
Obviously the words "throughout the United Kingdom" include rural areas. This duty will be fulfilled by the inclusion of a condition in BT's licence to oblige it to provide the call box service. This is condition 11 in the draft BT licence and it will oblige BT to continue to provide a network of public call boxes throughout the United Kingdom. I should like to stress that the duty on the Secretary of State and the obligation on British Telecom continue, regardless of whether or not the call box service makes a loss.
I should now like to turn to the question of the withdrawal of loss-making call boxes, which the noble Lord. Lord Bruce of Donington, laboured fairly heavily. He and other noble Lords claimed that after privatisation BT will be under pressure to reduce loss-making services and will want to withdraw many call boxes. Certainly we hope British Telecommunications will try to improve efficiency and cut costs. But BT will simply not be allowed to withdraw call boxes when and where it wishes. Instead, withdrawal will be governed, through the condition in the licence, by guidelines agreed between BT and the director. These guidelines will specify a minimum figure for the annual revenue of a call box, below which it may be withdrawn. This is similar to the present voluntary agreement between BT and POUNC. In future, BT will not be allowed to withdraw a call box unless it is in accordance with these guidelines. This is a very important strengthening of the consumers' position.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, touched on the minimum figure. I cannot say with any precision what it will be because it will be determined by the director; but what I can say is that in setting the figure the director will be bound by his duty under Clause 3 to secure the provision of public call boxes throughout the United Kingdom so as to satisfy all

417
reasonable demands for them, as I have already said. I have no reason to believe that the director will set a figure which is significantly out of line with the present figure of £185. I can say quite categorically to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that £750, which is the figure he referred to, is excessively wide of the mark; I hope he will accept that.
I think it is also worth pointing out at this stage that in any case the number of withdrawals has been particularly low. In 1982–83 only 66 were withdrawn, and of those only 29 came from rural areas. It is also worth stressing at this stage that in addition to the roughly 77,000 call boxes which exist at the moment there are some 300,000 pay-phones in existence; the noble Lord did not mention that. Of course, those strengthen very much the opportunity for people in rural areas and all over the place to have access to a telephone.
In moving his amendment the noble Lord hinted that the duty in Clause 3 to secure call boxes to satisfy all reasonable demands for them could mean that the demand of an isolated village was not reasonable and therefore it had no right to have a call box. I hope I can reassure him on this point. What is a reasonable demand will be decided in the first instance by the director, who will be guided by condition 42 of the licence. This makes it quite clear that BT's obligation to provide a voice telephonist service continues, regardless of whether or not the demand for that service in a particular area is sufficient to be commercial.
We have been asked about how a call box service which at present loses about £77 million a year is to be financed. This was really the noble Lord's theme in moving his amendment. It has been argued that it is an unfair obligation on BT. I hope I can reassure him on this. First of all, I should like to point out that we should not necessarily take the figure of £77 million at face value. The public call box service generates more revenue than the bare figure indicates, for example, through reverse charge calls and in some cases through incoming calls as well. In addition, there is considerable scope for improved efficiency through better pay-phone units, as I have described, and the new design of public access telephones to help contain maintenance costs as well.
Nevertheless, we accept that for some time to come the call box service will probably run at a loss. That is why the Government have decided to permit BT to levy what are known as access charges. These will both secure the provision of the loss-making services and prevent BT, who will be obliged to provide them, from being placed at a competitive disadvantage. Perhaps I can explain how access charges will work. An access charge will have a specific charge over and above the direct cost of inter-connection, payable by all operators of telecommunications systems which interconnect with BT's system. Access charges will also be payable by the relevant part of BT's own system. For example, if the charge is for inter-connecting with BT's local networks, BT's trunk and international systems must also pay the access charge.
Access charges are intended to be a safeguard for BT and it will be up to BT to decide whether or not to levy them. It will also be up to BT to decide
418
how access charges will work, But BT's licence, Condition 19, will set out the basic principles of any method. First, access charges must be applied in a non-discriminatory way to all inter-connecting systems; and, secondly, the charges must relate solely to the cost incurred in providing the eligible services. These will be set out in the BT licence and will be the public call box service which we are discussing, the 999 service, the supply of apparatus and services designed for the disabled, and any losses incurred on services to rural areas. Before any access charge is introduced the method of its calculation must be approved by the director. I hope that in describing how we propose to secure these loss-making services, particularly in relation to public call boxes, I have been able to satisfy your Lordships that there is no intention to allow the wholesale withdrawal of public call boxes. They will continue and they will be safeguarded. I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Beswick: The noble Lord was very persuasive in what he said. He has told us a good deal about the guidelines, but I am sure he appreciates that really we cannot discuss the guidelines. We do not know them; we have not read them; we have not got them at our disposal. What we are concerned with here is the proposed legislation—what goes into the Bill.
If I may say so, the noble Lord spelt out most convincingly what he wanted to do. He assured us that there will be a continued obligation on British Telecom to provide the services which we require. But if all that is implicit in subsection 2(a), what is the objection to stating it explicitly in this short amendment?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord must understand that the figure could not necessarily be laid down. The point is that it is for the director to decide what the figure should be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation and reply. But I do not think we can be satisfied with it; in a moment I will say why.
I very much regret the remarks which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about the speech of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who took 12 minutes to move a very important amendment which will affect many people. I would point out to him that over the last hour and a half the Opposition have said very little in debate in this Committee because the amendments have been coming from other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who earlier made a complaint about Second Reading speeches.
This is an important amendment. It involves millions of people up and down the country. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that there are 56 million potential users of telephone boxes? It is not the 20 per cent. who have not private telephones who are affected; it is all 56 million of us, and if one is stuck in a car break-down miles out in the country and there is no telephone within a reasonable distance, then, by heaven, one will feel deprived! I have myself felt deprived, even in ordinary circumstances, when I have had to walk a long way to a telephone. If I had to walk

419
even further, I should feel even more deprived. That is why I think it is an important amendment, which I am glad to see has support from all sides of the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has referred to licence Condition 11, and he feels that that safeguards the public telephone boxes. But it is clear that no kiosk will remain in service unless its takings are above the key minimum figure. The noble Lord pooh-poohed the idea that that figure would be £750, but that figure was quoted as a result of a newspaper report. I shall be very brief in reading the report, which relates to the present British Telecom. It states:
"British Telecom has rejected a plea from Aspatria Town Council to instal a telephone in an old folks' estate.
"It says the phone would not he able to pay for itself and suggests that the council rent one.
"Alan Brant, a Telecom official, told the council there wasn't a 'cat in hell's chance' of a kiosk being provided at Brayton Park.
"'To provide a telephone box we would need to get back £750 a year to break even and there's no chance of it taking that sort of money'."
That is where the figure of £750 came from, and I think it was fair that we should quote it.
If the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is saying that under the new licence British Telecom will have to have a very much lower figure than that, we shall be very happy to hear of it, and to have it confirmed. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
8.52 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may briefly intervene and say that the figure of £185, which is the figure at the moment which dictates whether or not a telephone is to be, or could be, removed, subject to POUNC's views on it, is not in any sense meant to be a break-even figure. That is a totally different thing. A break-even figure and a minimum figure under which a telephone box might be withdrawn are not the same.
The Countess of Mar: Perhaps I can help the Committee a little. In my days in British Telecom we had to be careful about providing new kiosks. Before we put in a new one we had to be fairly sure that it would pay its way; but we very rarely took out an old one, even if it was in an extremely remote rural community. I think that we used to leave them even when they were taking only £10 a year. There was one instance when an Irishman tried to raid the cash box and found that there was only fourpence in it. So we took that one away; but it was the only one that was taken away during my seven years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I find both interventions extremely helpful, in particular that by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who, as I understood it, was telling the Committee that under the present regime kiosks are almost never removed. I think that that was what she said. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister is assuring me that that position will continue, or even be improved. If that is so, I should be very happy to hear it.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, also mentioned access charges. He said that private operators—operators other than British Telecom—would be paying their way and paying for
420
part of the services, such as telephone kiosks and rural facilities, through the access charges; that they would be made to bear their part of the burden. But is it not the case that British Telecom itself will be trying to keep access charges as low as possible? Will not British Telecom be doing that? If it does, then the amount of revenue which will come from the private concerns will consequently be reduced, and under those circumstances they will not be paying their proper whack towards the provision of uneconomic services.
Is it not also a fact that if British Telecom made access charges which covered the cost of the unremunerative services, the private operators, such as—for example, Mercury—would merely by-pass the British Telecom system and perhaps use some peripheral service? Those are questions that need answering before we can decide whether or not to press the amendment—in particular the question on access charges.
Lord Beswick: I understood the noble Lord to say in his answer to me that the Government could not accept the amendment, though they agreed with it in spirit, because they could not accept a figure. Is that what he said? In which case, what is the figure in the amendment?
Lord Glenarthur: What I hope I said to the noble Lord was that the figure would be decided by the director and that it was up to him to decide. The figure could not be put in the Bill because, apart from anything else, the director might want to change it, and if the figure were in the Bill, the Bill would then have to be changed.
Lord Beswick: There is no intention in the amendment to put in a figure.
Lord Glenarthur: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord; but I thought that that was the point he was making.
If I may now revert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the director will have the powers to enforce the retention of a kiosk in a particular area if he thinks that it is not in the interests of the public in the area that the kiosk should be removed, whatever might be its takings. I think it is also worth pointing out that local authorities have a right to susbsidise—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Glenarthur: So far they have made little contribution, but it is a fact that they can subsidise, and Clause 84 expands on that.
In his exposition of the figure of £750, which he quoted from a newspaper article—which I must confess I have not seen—the noble Lord was I think confusing the existence of established boxes and the provision of new ones. Of course in providing a new kiosk it is to some extent a different matter. Then British Telecommunications will want to see that it is worthwhile; but I do not think that anyone is at all suggesting that the present network of 77,000 to which I referred is in any way inadequate.
To turn to access charges, it does not matter if BT wants to keep them lower. Access charges are a safeguard for British Telecommunications. BT will

421
itself pay by far the largest proportion of access fees. The question of by-passing is, I believe, to some extent a red herring. I think that it stems from experience in the United States, where access charges are indeed very high. In the United Kingdom they will be a tiny fraction of what they are in the United States.
I hope that I have been able to explain that there are very strong safeguards built into the Bill to continue to provide just the kind of facilities which noble Lords on all sides of the Committee are so keen to see maintained. We believe that they are strong safeguards. I hope that in view of the way in which I have described access charges and the important role that they will play in financing those call boxes which make a loss, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ezra: Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said, there seem to be some areas of uncertainty in this issue. For one thing it appears that the director has to use his judgment as to whether the facilities should be maintained or left in place. Secondly, the level of access charges seems to be a matter determined by the company. I would have thought that it would be best for all concerned, for the companies, for the director and for the public, if this whole issue was clarified more than it is at present in the legislation.
Lord Weinstock: The objective of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, seems to stem from the belief that the present arrangements are intrinsically satisfactory. I have not heard expressed by noble Lords opposite the Government any view that they are not. It seems to me that noble Lords proposing the amendment have overlooked the fact that the removal of telephone boxes will be quite expensive. It is a disincentive for companies seeking to he profitable to do it. Even if the amendment is carried, I am afraid that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, are unlikely to be satisfied since it would merely substitute one set of words for another.
We have here another example of the situation with which the Government are faced in putting through legislation to place in private hands what has hitherto been a public service. Your Lordships' House is trying, by forms of words, to safeguard the elements of service which it fears will be lost. It is a very difficult job for your Lordships to accomplish. I do not believe that there is too much point in your Lordships pressing this amendment merely for the sake of exchanging forms of words one for another. It will make no basic difference to the Bill.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am naturally disappointed with the reply of the noble Lord. One matter struck me as very significant. The financial point below which a call box will be removed differs very sharply from the conditions under which a call-box would be installed. I have heard nothing so far that disputes the prospect of £750 a year still remaining the operative figure for the installation of a new call-box. Perhaps the noble Lord can query that.
Throughout the debate and during discussion of numerous amendments we have heard references to the draft licence. I must remind your Lordships that
422
this is still only a draft licence and that it remains to become finalised in its ultimate form. I sincerely trust therefore that the Government will take steps to ensure that time is provided for a full debate in both Houses on the licence when it is finalised, or preferably before it is finalised. There has been no adequate opportunity of debate so far.
I am not satisfied with the response of the Government to the amendment and the whole purpose behind it. I think that there is still considerable cause for anxiety and that the country has every right to be anxious. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, in his rather pessimistic assumptions concerning the whole future of the Bill and its prospects. The noble Lord possibly shares my view that the main purpose of the Bill is not concerned with the telecommunications system but with the raising of money. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 48 not moved.]
9.6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to promote the need to protect the wellbeing of employees in the telecommunications industry.").
The noble Lord said: As drafted Clause 3(1) and (2) requires the Secretary of State and the director to have a duty to look after most of the those with a direct interest in telecommunications. For example, consumers are protected. Purchasers, users, the disabled, those living in isolated areas and even manufacturers are protected under the Bill. I might add that many of the protections have been put into the Bill—this Bill, not the first one that Parliament had before it—because of much pressure put on the Government by many organisations, not least the trade unions in the industry which were very conscious of the need to protect the telephone subscriber whether he be a private subscriber or a business subscriber.
Bearing in mind what they have done, the staff feel that they have been singularly left out of the Bill. They are not covered by the general duties that employers have towards people under the Bill. The staff have noted in particular, with some alarm, the absence of any specific provision for them in the form of a general duty. If, in Clause 3, everyone else is included, why have the staff been left out? Not surprisingly, they feel that there is some underlying motive in this omission which will be used against them by the Government at some future stage.
There has been a long tradition in telecommunications of statutory recognition of the right at least to consideration of the needs of employees. All that this amendment seeks is to continue that recognition. I should add that this amendment would not cover only the employees of British Telecom. It might, in the general sense, also cover the employees in manufacturing industry whose jobs may very well be at risk due to other provisions in the Bill.
Noble Lords might feel this is something we should not write into legislation. However, there are some precedents, not necessarily for writing in conditions of

423
service but for laying down certain conditions under which staff will be consulted. I think, if I am not mistaken, that there was provision in the 1949 Coal Industry Act for proper consultation and proper machinery for consultation to take place with the miners. In the 1947 Electricity Act there was certainly provision for proper consultation with employees. Indeed, I worked within that particular statute in that industry and found that it gave very good protection and a good opportunity for the staff to take a role and to have a role in the running of the industry. So there are precedents for referring in legislation to staff and for giving staff certain protections.
It is quite true, of course, that in those nationalisation Acts the staff did not need the same type of protection as the staff who will go into the privatised British Telecommunications service may need, because they were being transferred from private industries into a publicly-owned industry. Therefore, they had the benefit of the public service ethos which then was that the public service would be in the first flight of good employers. I am not at all sure whether that still appertains. Nevertheless, in 1947 and 1949 it certainly did appertain.
Therefore, as I say, there is precedent for giving certain rights, certain protections, to employees in a statute. I would certainly do no harm, and may very well do a lot of good, if we wrote the provisions of the amendment into the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The amendment is totally inadequate for the purposes which the noble Lord has in mind. Nevertheless, the sentiment expressed should get some response from the Government as to what enlightened personnel policies they have in mind in the new company. The terms of the amendment almost suggest that there should be a cosseted relationship between the company and the employees. But that is not what is sought. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is seeking to maintain some of the traditions of good personnel policies that exist at present in the organisation.
I should like to refer to the Financial Times and to an article this week headed, "BT plans radical reorganisation", in which it is indicated that that reorganisation is proceeding now. Indeed, this proves that point that it was not necessary to privatise to secure efficiency and reorganisation. Indeed, Sir George Jefferson says in his statement that the plans for the existing reorganisation were thought of long before the Government thought of plans for privatisation. So they are not a result of the pressure of the Bill. However, in the statement in the Financial Times they have agreed with the unions to accept 15,000 redundancies in the industry by negotiation and by agreement. It suggests that under the present arrangements there is a perfectly satisfactory relationship—not necessarily a cosseting relationship, but a satisfactory relationship—as regards negotiation and agreement such as exists in any enlightened company, state or privately owned.
Sir George Jefferson, when questioned on this subject in the excellent interview which he gave on the reorganisation of BT, said:
424
"I see the people we have as a very substantial asset, and one of our tasks is to manage the transition in a way in which we exploit all our assets as best we can".
We are suggesting that this important asset in the business should be recognised somewhere in the legislation, and that there should be some statement of rights and provisions for an enlightened personnel policy. It does not militate against the proposed efficiency of the company. I sincerely hope that the company will be efficient and well-run, and, if Sir George Jefferson is in command, I suspect that it will be.
What we want is some provision in the legislation which covers the employee situation and which would enable the Minister perhaps to say a word about the obligations of the new company to the employees. This point also arises on Amendment No. 51 as regards retraining, and later on Amendment No. 130 on the subject of employee shares and participation. So the provision of adequate employee welfare (if I may so describe it) or of a deep concern for enlightened personnel policies does not militate against the efficiency.
I noticed the other day in the annual statement of Marks and Spencer's that this year they will pay £22 million on employee benefits out of their profits. That indicates an enlightened business. The provision for employees in a progressive way is a contributor to efficiency. I hope that the Minister will give us some indication of how he sees the role of employees in the new situation. This amendment provides him with that opportunity.
The Countess of Mar: I, too, should like to support the motion. I have been seriously concerned all the way along that there has been no mention at all of the staff or employees of British Telecom or of any of the other people involved in the industry. Even before I left there were rumours flying around that 15,000 people might have to lose their jobs, that 45,000 people might have to lose their jobs or that 65,000 people might have to lose their jobs. I understand that the staff still do not know what the position is, and are extremely unhappy about it. There has been a very big reorganisation in the regions in particular, and nobody knows quite whether they are coming or going.
British Telecommunications has had an excellent staff record. There have been one or two strikes but, on the whole, the unions have not been militant. They have accepted that new technology has meant that there must be some redundancies, but not on the scale which they anticipate with this Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: I fully accept that the telecommunications industry needs to attract and retain able and dedicated employees. I would certainly join with the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in paying tribute to those hard-working members of British Telecom, as it is at the moment. But I also understand the very real fears that many people have about potential job losses. I certainly have very grave doubts about whether this amendment would assist in achieving the noble Lord's objective. Is it right that the Secretary of State or the director should be under a duty:
"to promote the need to protect the wellbeing of employees in the telecommunications industry"?

425
Quite apart from the vagueness of the wording, the Government certainly take the view that these matters are much better dealt with by the employers and the employees themselves. There is already a legislative provision to support such an approach.
In moving his amendment, the noble Lord referred to the Coal Industry Act and the Electricty Act. I should like to draw his attention to Section 46 of the Companies Act 1980. Among the matters to which the directors of a company are to have regard in the performance of their functions are the interests of the company's employees in general as well as the interests of its members. So I do not see what positive actions the Secretary of State and the director could take to fulfil the duty proposed in the amendment without either interfering quite unnecessarily and unjustifiably in the internal affairs of the companies involved or upsetting the existing statutory obligation in the Companies Act.
So far as consultation in British Telecommunications itself is concerned, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, drew attention, we touch on these matters in amendments later on. If the noble Lord is happy with that, I should prefer to leave that discussion until then. I do not think that anyone can seriously argue that this Bill, which is designed to set the framework for the future of telecommunications, is the right place to introduce further legislation in the field of employer and employee relationships. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that and not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord seems to have the impression that this is a soft-hearted amendment. May I assure him that it is by no means a soft-hearted amendment? It is intended as a totally hard-headed approach to the whole range of obligations of the director general and the Secretary of State. We are not here talking only about British Telecom: we are talking about all the employees in the telecommunications industry, and I would imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, would come under this heading. It is not only in their interests that their welfare should be protected; it is in the interests of all of us.
The fact of the matter is that in the international telecommunications industry there is the possibility of an extremely open market if we allow it to be one where our competitors do not allow it. Unless we have the interests of those who work in the telecommunications industry at heart and we enable them, together with government and together with the companies for which they work, to compete effectively in international markets, not only will the telecommunications industry be the poorer but the country as a whole will be the poorer.
Unfortunately, those noble Lords who do not like collectivism may not like amendments of this kind, but collectivism is to be found in the international telecommunications business, and it is to say the least odd, having accepted so many obligations for the Director General of Telecommunications and for the Secretary of State in Clause 3, to exclude this particular group, who are of great importance to all of us.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should have thought that the existing law fully protects employees, for there are a great many statutes on this subject. There is the Employment Protection Act and various other statutes; there are industrial tribunals and trade unions. I should have thought that there were plenty of laws to protect employees. Most employees receive very large redundancy payments in accordance with their length of service. Personally, I should have thought that employees are protected by all the various statutes on this subject which are on the statute
book.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to make the importation into the United Kingdom of telecommunications equipment and apparatus conditional on the establishment of reciprocal telecommunications export agreements with the countries of origin of such goods").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of a non-controversial nature and I trust that the Government will find themselves able to accept it without any great difficulty. At the moment British Telecom are spending about £1,250 million per annum on telecommunication equipment made by manufacturers in this country. Some 95 per cent. of their requirements come from the United Kingdom. This is part of a deliberate policy of British Telecom that has been followed up to now.
It may be interesting to realise that United Kingdom manufacturers exported only £118 million worth of telecommunication equipment in 1983, and in that field, taking into account imports of telecommunication equipment, we had a deficit amounting to £148 million on our trade in telecommunication equipment overseas during the year 1983. The reason why this amendment is moved is because we wish the new company, in conformity with what we hope will be this amendment, to continue to act wherever practicable in the interests not only of the consumer in the United Kingdom but also of the manufacturers themselves.
It is not generally realised that most other telecommunication systems in the Western world outside those in the United States are state-owned telecommunication systems. They insist on the indigenous supply from their own manufacturers of telecommunication equipment made in their country. In other words, there is already a positive discrimination in most of the western countries for telecommunication equipment to be supplied by the manufacturers in the countries concerned where the state telecommunication system is.
What we are afraid of is that there might be a tendency in the interests of free competition—or what is euphemistically referred to as such—to lower the barriers in the United Kingdom without the prospect of any reciprocal action at all in the remainder of the western world. This is what this amendment is designed to prevent. We are afraid—and we have good reason to be afraid on the basis of some of the statements that have been made—that following the passing of this Bill and the privatisation of British

427
Telecom, and in the interests of so-called free competition, British Telecom, for the private interests of its shareholders, for the financial return they require, will find it necessary to import as cheaply as possible regardless of the country of origin, and regardless of whether or not they have a reciprocal arrangement with us.
We know quite well that telecommunication equipment is manufactured on quite a large scale in some of the newly-industrialised countries—I am talking in particular of places like Korea, Taiwan, and so on—where the wage levels are about 30 per cent. of those obtaining in western Europe. Consequently, it is very easy and much cheaper in many instances to import into this country goods which are in effect dumped into this country because of quite significantly lower costs, in social as well as in money terms, in the countries from which they come. This is a policy which has been followed in relation to shipping. Regardless of the consequences to British manufacturers, the goods come in from anywhere, where they are cheaper, disregarding any reciprocal arrangements, dumping considerations or anything of that kind. We want to prevent this happening in telecommunications. If the Government intend that British manufacturers should be treated just as fairly as the remainder, they will have no difficulty in supporting this amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard: I have some sympathy with some of the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on this subject. I feel that he has not got off his pram, but he has gone a little over the top. I will reserve my main remarks for an amendment that, among others, is down in my name, Amendment No. 52. I do not think I could support the noble Lord's amendment because it is phrased so deliberately anti-import, and the practicality of exact reciprocal agreements between different countries is something that no Secretary of Trade under either Government has ever been able completely to achieve.
While I have a great deal of sympathy with the concept of getting as close to fair competition as possible and although I realise that we shall be told that many aspects of international competition are covered in the Bill—we have had some discussion on that already—I feel that the way to treat it is in a more general way. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says when I come to propose Amendment No. 52.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The amendment gives the Minister the opportunity of saying once more, what he anticipates will be the practice in this important area which affects employment substantially in the United Kingdom and the welfare of some of our prestigious companies in this field. I hope he will take that opportunity as it affects the whole purchasing policy of the new company if restrictions of imports of this kind are imposed. The amendment says that the restrictions on imports are in relation to companies that do not exercise reciprocity. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition.
We should think carefully about this amendment. It is important. I again quote Sir George Jefferson on this
428
subject of future purchasing policy of the company. He says that he hopes they will depend on United Kingdom suppliers substantially in the future but he says:
"I make the proviso that those suppliers have got to satisfy us that they can provide internationally competitive products."
That is a pretty wide statement and it suggests that some of the dangers quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, are real dangers. They are dangers in two directions: one is from the newly developing countries with their cheap wage bills and their ability to manufacture mass production items which are sometimes required in this industry. There is also the danger that companies such as AT & T who have suffered from the deregulation of the telephone system now decide as a matter of strategy that they will concentrate on developing not the internal telephone system of the Unted States, but the manufacture of supplies in an international market. AT & T could he welcome in this country; but the tendency would be, in the case of AT & T and other European suppliers, that in order to get within the prohibition situation they can set up, like Nissan, an assembly plant for goods that are manufactured elsewhere and assembled in this country in order to qualify.
I suspect that as soon as this Bill goes through there will be massive intention on the part of international companies to get into this market; because the supplying industry in this country (about which the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, will know a great deal more than I) has been tied to the specifications of British Telecom—and this will be a good deal less cosy, as Sir George Jefferson quotes, in future. There is a real concern about the future of the industry and the future of jobs. While the amendment may be defective to some extent and may contravene some EEC regulations or international GATT arrangements it gives the opportunity to the Minister to tell us a little about how he sees the purchasing policy in relation to the supply industry in the future strategy of the successor company.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: This is an important matter and one on which I think everyone would share the general aspirations underlying the amendment; namely, that we all want to see an efficient, progressive and profitable industry in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has said that British Telecom at present obtains 95 per cent. of all its supplies from United Kingdom sources. That is entirely true. He went on to say that in future there is a risk that as a private company they might wish to buy more from abroad. Perhaps I ought to start by saying that there is no formal control of British Telecom at present, and we see no good reason why there should be formal control in the future. I am sure that the close relationship between British Telecom and its United Kingdom suppliers will continue in future.
United Kingdom manufacturers are in a very advantageous position. They have a long history of supplying British Telecom; and British Telecom's network has grown and developed in close collaboration with them. United Kingdom manufacturers therefore are ideally placed to producing equipment to

429
meet the particular requirements of the British Telecom network. It is therefore in British Telecom's own interest to foster a strong, home-based manufacturing industry. Indeed, the chairman of British Telecom has recently stated publicly that British Telecom intends to stick by its traditional suppliers and that he does not expect in the immediate future any significant increase in the amount of equipment that British Telecom purchases from abroad. When I saw him a few days ago he repeated those assurances. There is good reason therefore to be assured about the situation.
The other main concern that has been expressed relates to apparatus for attachment to the network. Substantial progress has been made in liberalising this market. Over 300 products are now available for competitive supply. There has been concern that liberalisation would result in a flood of imports. But that has not happened. Of course, there have been imports because this is what opening up the market means; but United Kingdom manufacturers are proving equal to the challenge of competition. For example, some 63 models of telephones have now been approved with an average United Kingdom manufacture content of 70 per cent.; four repertory dialers have been approved with an average United Kingdom content of 50 per cent. The same figure applies to modems where 108 models have been approved. As regards telex four models have been approved with 100 per cent. United Kingdom content. If all the 309 products so far approved as a result of liberalisation are taken together, the best available estimate for their average United Kingdom content is 74 per cent. I think these figures speak for themselves.
Perhaps I might now deal specifically with the question of reciprocal agreements, to which the amendment is directed. There are obvious difficulties in the context of this Bill in placing such a duty on the Secretary of State and the director. Clause 22, which provides for the standards and approvals regime, applies only to equipment for attachment and not to equipment which forms part of the network itself. Neither in that clause nor elsewhere are powers given to the Secretary of State or the director to impose import controls. To give them such powers—they are not in the Bill at present—coupled with this duty, would contravene our international obligations such as, for example, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the EEC rules.
There is always an apparent attraction in a reciprocal agreement but too often such agreements prove to be a device to restrict trade. Exports frequently are obstructed by non-tariff barriers such as technical requirements, which are difficult or time consuming for exporters to meet. The right way to approach this problem is by removing non-tariff barriers and not erecting new ones of our own. That in the end is to the advantage of users and manufacturers alike. Our policy is to press vigorously in the appropriate international bodies such as the GATT and the EEC for the liberalisation of trade, for the removal of barriers and for the harmonisation of standards and approvals arrangements. That will serve our best interests both in this field and generally.
I have no doubt whatever that in the competitive climate this Bill is intended to produce our own
430
industry in this country will rise successfully to the challenge. I would hope and expect that it will do better in the export markets than it has done in years before. Our share of world trade in apparatus has fallen from 20 per cent. to 6 per cent. I would now expect and hope that in the more vigorous atmosphere which will now exist our manufacturers will prove more successful than they have been in recent years; and that was the general tenor of the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, on our earlier discussions.
In brief, therefore, the position is that we could not impose restrictions of the kind proposed by this amendment in view of our international obligations. We could not do that without being in breach of those international obligations, and I am sure that nobody would want us to do that. Secondly, British Telecom is in an ideal position to maintain its share of the United Kingdom market, and is determined to do so. Thirdly, we have a vigorous industry of our own, which I would hope will take full advantage of the opportunities both at home and in the export markets.
Lord Weinstock: I could not support the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, simply because I do not think reciprocal agreements have necessarily any practical effect. It is one thing to make reciprocal agreements between nations or governments: it is quite another to get people to buy as much from you as you are buying from them. There is a subsequent amendment, No. 52, which I will support and to which I will speak, which I think deals with the situation more appropriately.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, will not support this amendment but will support Amendment No. 52, as I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said he would do. But I would point out that Amendment No. 52 will cost the Exchequer money, whereas our amendment will cost the Exchequer nothing except good negotiation with other countries and with other suppliers. In those circumstances, I would have hoped that it would be their wish to save the taxpayer money and to achieve the same objective.
It seems that everyone is agreed that there should be a good market for British equipment, and at the present time British manufacturers have a very good relationship with British Telecom. In fact, some people think that the relationship is too cosy. I very much doubt that, but nevertheless the relationship is good. We seemed to get an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—I do not know whether it was an assurance, or whether he had been taking Sir George Jefferson gently by the shoulder—that this relationship would continue, and that British Telecom will continue to buy virtually the same proportion of its goods in the future, when it is privatised, as it has done in the past. I hope that that is what the noble Lord was telling us and that that assertion will be borne out by the facts in future.
I have a press cutting here from Technology magazine, dated 9th January 1984, which does not appear to bear out what he said. It is headed:
"System X loses phone monopoly"—

431
and it goes on to say—
"British Telecom will break the System X monopoly on digital switching within two to three years for up to 20 per cent. of its network. Up to £400 million worth of contracts will go to suppliers other than Plessey and GEC, who supply System X. Thorn-Ericsson, STC and Cit-Alcatel may be among the likely beneficiaries. 'It is our firm intention to seek and alternative source' says David Pentecost, British Telecom's director of major systems procurement. 'It is just a question of timing"'.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, might wish to comment on that, because it certainly appears to show that already British Telecom is moving away from its traditional suppliers and trying to find new suppliers, and that it does not very much care whether those suppliers are in this country or abroad.
It may very well be that we should honour our international obligations. Who does not want to honour our international obligations? But the fact of the matter is that, all too often, this country is taken advantage of by other countries who will not, and do not intend to, honour their obligations. I am afraid that this country is a sucker in many respects in its relationships with other countries. We do the right and gentlemanly thing and they stab us in the back. It is about time that this country began looking after its own interests, the interests of its manufacturers and the interests of its people.
I have to say—this has to be said time and time again—that the future of this country, without a very strong, large manufacturing base, will be very bleak indeed, because North Sea oil is a finite commodity. When that runs out, as it will begin to run out towards the end of this decade, we shall rue the day when we allowed a flood of imports in from other countries, very often highly subsidised, while our home firms have been allowed to collapse around us. This has been the history of the past 15 or 20 years, or perhaps even longer. The time is coming when, whether we like it or not, we shall have to take action to protect our home-based industries.
We ought to start by ensuring that the privatised telephone system—if that is what is is, and, frankly, I do not know what it is, because I am confused about what the Government are trying to do in this Bill—will continue to keep British manufacturers and British workers at work on telecommunications equipment.
Lord Beswick: I must confess that I do not quite follow the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock. If he thinks that he is going to get much support from Amendment No. 52, with,
"the reflection of the support given by foreign network operators to their indigenous communications manufacturing industry",
then I will not say that he is fooling himself because I know that he never does fool himself; but the noble Lord is expecting a good deal from the director general, or whoever will exercise the discrimination, if he is going to measure,
"the reflection of the support given by foreign network operators".
In pursuing the objective we all have in common, I believe we would do better to look a little more carefully at this point about reciprocity. The weakness of the amendment which my noble friends have moved is in the implication that there has to be a national reciprocity agreement. I agree with the noble
432
Lords, Lord Weinstock and Lord Cockfield, that there would be some difficulty in achieving a national agreement, but I would not seek a national agreement; I would seek an executive decision in those cases where it is proposed to buy from a country where we have no chance of selling. That, I think, is wrong. One could deal with that situation by a decision of the director general, or whoever will have authority in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, stressed the need for being equal to the challenge of foreign competition. He has no need to say that, because we all agree that we wish to be equal to foreign competition. But if one is attempting to compete against a foreign company which is supported by its own Government and into which country one cannot oneself export, I do not see how you can criticise United Kingdom manufacturers for not being equal to foreign competition. This is not a situation where equality of challenge comes into the argument at all.
The noble Lord talked about the difficulty of contravening international obligations; but if we have a situation where we are prepared to import but the other countries are not prepared to import, are we contravening international obligations if we say, "Until such time as you enable us to sell to you, we are not prepared to buy from you"? Would that be to contravene our international obligations? The noble Lord said that the answer is to remove tariff barriers. In a perfect world, that is of course the answer. I know that either through Europe or by our own national action we are trying to do certain things in that respect, but the fact remains that there are countries which are impervious to the argument about removing tariff barriers.
I would have thought there was an obligation to impose, either on British Telecom or on whoever is governing the affairs of British Telecom—be it the Secretary of State or the director general—a requirement not to import or to override United Kingdom manufacturers in those cases where the goods which it is proposed to buy come from countries which are supported by their own national Governments and into which countries we are unable to export.
Lord Thorneycroft: There are a great many things in this world which one does better without legislation—and I believe this is one of them. Everybody has a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and with the aims he has. Certainly I do, because I, too, am a Post Office supplier. A great many people—and certainly all suppliers—share a good number of the anxieties which the noble Lord quite properly expressed.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, is right when he says that one cannot achieve anything with this clause—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, probably knows that perfectly well. One cannot really protect the suppliers of British Telecom through arrangements of this kind, which flaunt in the face of all our competitors overseas in other nations what our international obligations are. If you want to do these things, if you want to maintain good relations between British Telecom and their suppliers, for God's sake keep quiet and let them get on with it. They get on very well at the present time.

433
The suppliers are very able, British Telecom is very sensible: British Telecom is very anxious that we should have a strong supplying industry in this country. Those things are known and they are well understood, and raising them in legislation in clauses of this kind, which raises enormous complications in international trade, is really not the right approach.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, does not anticipate the change in the general attitude within British Telecom as a state owned organisation with some responsibility for the welfare of British industry in general and some responsibility as a nationalised business. If you change that and create a private monopoly whose concern is to realise the profits envisaged in the prospectus, then they have to give that precedence in their thinking. Sir George Jefferson has said, "All right, we will buy from British companies". I welcome very much the assurance that he has given to the noble Lord, and I will be happy to see that in Hansard because it does represent a commitment on the part of Sir George Jefferson in the future. He said, "Yes, I want to see a healthy British industry and in my buying policy I will buy British where internationally competitive". That is a quotation from his own statement, which rather qualifies the commitment to a 95 per cent. United Kingdom supply which is the present position.
Keep in mind that the market will be invaded by companies that are backed by very highly developed sophisticated technology and based on economies of scale providing for markets like the Japanese market and the American market. So it is a real matter of concern where you have a different type of owner in charge of the company. I accept that within the GATT provisions and the EEC provisions we cannot discriminate, but I do hope that there will be some provision for a transition to enable British industry to get into the position of being internationally competitive. At the moment the British supplying industry is linked to the Post Office or British Telecom with its very exacting specifications, and these are not necessarily internationally applicable. There must he some provision, I hope, in the thinking of Sir George Jefferson, or whoever runs the successor company, there must be some concern for the future of the British supply industry. I am delighted with the assurances that has been given to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield.
Lord Ezra: I should like to add a few remarks to what my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe has said. While I was with the National Coal Board I played a fairly considerable part in introducing the concept of positive purchasing within the nationalised industries, and we achieved a very high level of home purchasing on a competitive basis. The question which arises which my noble friend touched on, as did other noble Lords, in this very important issue, is what is going to happen in the new framework within which this major enterprise is going to operate? Sir George Jefferson has given these assurances; but he said, if I am quoting the noble Lord correctly, in the immediate future. Sir George Jefferson of course will be moving on in due course and no doubt taking up other jobs. The
434
question arises on this major Bill which is to transform a vast basic industry from the public to the private sector: what is going to be the long-term attitude towards purchasing?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Your Lordships may feel that this amendment has received adequate consideration from all sides of the Committee. Speaking for my noble friends, I have no wish to protract the discussion further. We are not satisfied with the decision as it is now left and we shall probably return to this issue on Report.
Lord Cockfield: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, endeavoured to widen the debate on to import controls. Let me say this to the noble Lord. The economic policies of the Labour Government were disastrous for Britain. They ended up by being disastrous for the Labour Party—but that, of course, was a good thing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: May I reply to the noble Lord that we did not impose import controls, and that is perhaps why we did not succeed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to take all necessary measures to secure and sustain a stable level of employment throughout the telecommunication industry, where necessary making special provision for the re-training of personnel, in new technological developments and innovations as and when such developments and innovations are introduced;")
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been discussed with an earlier amendment, and I do not propose to repeat what I said on the subject of personnel policies and re-training. I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to ensure a fair international competitive position for the United Kingdom telecommunications manufacturing industry including the reflection of the support given by foreign network operators to their indigenous communications manufacturing industry;")
The noble Viscount said: I have been asked by other members of the Committee whether they may speak to Amendments Nos. 54 and 58A at the same time. I am not sure how complicated that will be, and I will be guided by my noble friend. In a sense, my belief is that Amendment No. 54 and, to a degree, Amendment No. 58A would be covered by this rather wider-phrased Amendment No. 52.
May I say at the outset that the purpose of this amendment—I see the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has left his seat—is to encourage the Secretary of State as well as the director, who are mentioned at the beginning of Clause 3, to act in a manner that either of them consider best calculated,

435
"to ensure a fair international competitive position for the United Kingdom telecommunications manufacturing industry including the reflection of the support".
I am not suggesting that British industry be protected. I am suggesting—and I realise how hard it is—that those responsible, including a member of the Cabinet, should try to achieve a fair competitive position, bearing in mind all our international obligations.
There is an obvious danger in liberalising here and not abroad, particularly against a background of the history which the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, referred to the other day and which I have a feeling he may quickly touch on when he speaks, so I will leave it to him with his much greater knowledge of this area than mine. A 74 per cent. figure, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield mentioned in relation to telephone equipment supplied in the British market, does not give British manufacturers the same volume as a 100 per cent. market if that is the position, and remains the position, in France, Germany or other countries. Volume is pretty important to costs and efficiency.
I noted the words, quoted by my noble friend, of Sir George Jefferson, who does not expect a big increase in purchases from abroad, or words to that effect. We have to make sure, if we possibly can, that our manufacturing industry is not in an unfair competitive position. We have to do so in relation to subsidy; we have to do so in relation to compatibility, which can be used as an excuse even if foreign regimes start to follow our general direction. We have to make sure that we have a relatively fair competitive opportunity in relation to standards, which can also be used very easily to keep our equipment out of other people's markets.
I accept what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said about removing non-tariff barriers. This is obviously the far preferable route. So be it. As written, this amendment would merely require the Secretary of State to remove them or to do his very best to remove them. If he failed then he should consider how else he can give a broadly fair competitive opportunity to British industry. Our share of international markets has declined, and not entirely because of the faults of our manufacturing industry. We now have, for the first time, the opportunity to build our share again. We need a fair competitive opportunity.
It is true to say that in Clause 3(2)(b), (e) and (h), together with the definitions in Clause 4(2) of commercial activities which include export, we have already had our attention drawn by the Front Bench to the fact that part of the problems that I foresee are dealt with specifically. But my own belief is that in the world as it is we need a general duty for the Secretary of State particularly, and the director, to try to ensure a fair competitive opportunity and to look at all the factors I have mentioned. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: If I heard him correctly, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, suggested that we might consider the next amendment, Amendment No. 54, which is on the same lines. Is that correct?
Lord Mottistone: I am sorry; I did not get it through to my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I do not think that Amendments Nos. 54 and 58A do fit with this
436
amendment, and I think we should take them separately and briefly when their turn comes.
Lord Weinstock: In generally supporting what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has said, I want to say that I think Amendment No. 52 is especially important. I apologise for detaining your Lordships at such a late hour, but this is the only place I can identify in the Bill where the position of manufacturing industry can be mentioned specifically to be falling within the general responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the director general, under Clause 3. It is rather important, therefore, that it should be considered seriously.
In this country there is a tendency to regard manufacturing industry as something of declining importance. I have forgotten what is the exact percentage said to be now employed in manufacturing industry, but it is of the order of 20-something per cent. That indicates that 70-something per cent. is employed in other industries, said to be mostly service industries. Servicing what? The insurance companies, the banks, the stockbrokers, the pension funds are providing services to industry. At the base of all this great service industry activity in which we place so much hope for the future lies manufacturing industry. I fear that if manufacturing industry fails, unless we become merely a country entertaining tourists, the service industries, or a large part of them, will go with it.
Therefore, I think that to omit from the Bill any specific reference to the British telecommunications manufacturing industry would be a quite remarkable omission which would not be in the best interests of economy, nor even of the telecommunications industry.
I accept what has been said about the support for the manufacturers by British Telecommunications and by Sir George Jefferson himself, who, after all, has been connected with the industry for only three years. Since he went to BT there have been quite remarkable changes and, it would be quite wrong to deny, very great improvements in attitudes. It would also be wrong not to have observed a very considerable toughening up in the attitude of BT towards the British manufacturers.
For decades the manufacturers have been led by the nose by BT, and in the past two years BT has suddenly come to recognise the necessity of designing and manufacturing telephone exchanges capable of being exported and has taken an objective view about specifications. Whereas in the past it was satisfied with less than was justified, it is currently insistent on a great deal by way of performance from the manufacturers; and I have to tell your Lordships' Committee that that has been rather good for the manufacturers, no less so for my own company than for others. I hope that partly as a result of this inspiration—shall we call it?—or certainly stimulus our chances of breaking back into the international business in telephone exchanges will have been increased, provided the support continues. While Sir George has been at pains to make statements such as that he is buying 95 per cent. of his communications requirements from Great Britain and intends—I think that the words he used were—"in the immediate

437
future" to continue to do so, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, a quotation to the effect that Mr. Pentecost, a senor official of British Telecommunications, has said that he will buy 20 per cent. of its requirements from elsewhere. That statement has not been confined to Mr. Pentecost; it has been contained in other communications from very senior officials in British Telecom.
There is some uncertainty in the procurement of telephone exchanges because British Telecom, if it relies entirely on the British industry, will have System X and System X only. System X is not yet in great abundant supply, and perhaps BT has certain apprehensions. Those matters can best be worked out between the industry and British Telecom, of whose goodwill I think we must be reasonably confident. It is I believe in the interests of British Telecom to have a strong British industry, and British industry cannot manage without the support of British Telecom. It is plain and true and generally accepted that in every country where there is an indigenous industry the local network authority gives full support. There are one or two exceptions to the general rule that they buy exclusively from their own manufacturers; but they are not important exceptions, and where they exist there are other arrangements which invalidate any bad effects that they may have on the home industry.
No one can run a telecommunications industry without the basic support of the network operator. The best guarantee in the long term—I think that the noble Lord is indicating to me to hurry up. I shall be as quick as I can, but had the noble Lords accepted some of our earlier suggestions, there would be no need to be going on at this time of the night. As I was saying, the best guarantee in the long term for the success of the British industry is its own competence. But I do not think it is right that there should be no mention of manufacturing industry in the Bill, and I do not think it is right that the British industry should stand in a worse position than its foreign competitors. I commend Amendment No. 52 to the Committee as achieving both of those objectives to some degree.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, as usual, put his finger on the nub of the whole question when he said that it was of course far better that these matters are left out of legislation. The obvious advantage of leaving matters of this kind out of legislation is that your foreign competitors in the EC countries cannot indict you before the European Court or anywhere else on the basis of your legislation. It means that it is very difficult for your competitors to do anything about it so long as it is done as a matter of understanding. So long as British Telecom was run as a public utility, this was perfectly possible. The aims of British Telecom, as a public utility, were to provide services to the customer, to run a public service.
The reason for the misgivings that now arise is the abrupt change from the impelling objectives of the public utility to an organisation whose main purpose is to provide profits for its shareholders. Of course, the inducements behind that are to economise wherever possible, including economies of purchase. Hence, the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, and, to some extent, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and
438
I think probably widely shared throughout the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, if I may say so, is astonishingly naive about international relations within the EC and the attitude of the EC countries in this matter. Does he imagine for one moment that most of the EC countries that have their own state telecommunications system do anything other than prefer their own manufacturers? They do not put it into legislation which would immediately attract legal attention, including the legal attention of the noble Lord—
Lord Cockfield: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, why, then, is he advocating that we put it in the legislation?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, precisely so. We can then expose the humbug of the other EC countries which, as we all know, do precisely the same whether or not it is in the EC legislation. We always comply with it. But we do not insist on anyone else complying with it. However, that raises a wider issue. I have no desire to prolong discussion on this, but we shall return to it again. I quite understand the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock. I share his anxieties. I do not think that the expressions that have so far emanated from both Sir George Jefferson and indeed from the Government will materialise in practice in what we shall term for the moment the post-immediate future.
Lord Cockfield: Rarely have I listened to such intellectual muddle as that displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He says that the reason we cannot catch out the Europeans in unfair practices is that they do not put it in the legislation, whereupon he advocates that we put it in the legislation, no doubt to enable the Europeans to catch us out—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I ask—
Lord Cockfield: I am trying to answer this point. The noble Lord has spoken at quite excessive length with very little enlightenment in what he says. He will perhaps enable me to complete what I want to say.
Most of the debate has been a re-run of the one that we had a few minutes ago except for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, which were a re-run of the discussion we had earlier this afternoon. It is quite untrue that there is no mention in the Bill of the interests of manufacturers. They appear in many instances, as I have explained at great length.
There is nothing whatever to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, buying a British motor-car. There is nothing whatever to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, buying a British motor-car, and I hope that he does. There is nothing to prevent British Telecom buying British equipment, and they do; and I hope that they will continue to do so. But the dividing line is whether or not people support their own manufacturing industry because it is a good and efficient manufacturing industry. I hope that, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, it is a good and efficient manufacturing industry and will continue so to be. The question is

439
whether that is the situation or whether we write obligations into the law which are clearly and obviously in conflict with our international obligations.
What I am putting to your Lordships is that however much we all share the same aspirations—we all want to see a prosperous, efficient and progressive manufacturing industry in this country—we must go about it in the right way. I regret to say that trying to do it by inserting legislative provisions which are contrary to our international obligations is not the right way of doing it.
Lord Weinstock: Does the noble Lord insist that Amendment No. 52 is contrary to our international obligations? Does the noble Lord realise that the monopoly purchaser buying from more than one supplier when he has the opportunity to import, is entirely different from somebody buying motor-cars where there is a multiplicity of suppliers and a multiplicity of buyers?
Lord Cockfield: This is an obligation. The Bill itself says: that is shall be a duty. This amendment says that it shall be the duty of the director general and the Secretary of State to do certain things. I am prepared to accept an assurance from my noble friend Lord Trenchard that his amendment is meaningless—indeed, that might be so—in which event it is difficult to see why it should be put into the Bill. But if it has any meaning it can only have a meaning in the sense that it imposes an obligation on the director general and the Secretary of State to take action which was contrary to our international obligations.
Lord Weinstock: With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, can it be against our international obligations to legislate to ensure a fair international competitive position?
Viscount Trenchard: Before my noble friend answers, I must direct his attention to the wording at the beginning of Clause 3 where it says:
"The Secretary of State and the Director shall … [act] in the manner which he considers is best calculated [to ensurer]".
I made it very clear that I realised that those words meant that we could not ensure the Secretary of State's success on every occasion.
Lord Cockfield: But my noble friend is now saying that his amendment will have no effect. The amendment either has an effect or it has no effect. If it has no effect, there is no point in including it. If it does have an effect, it is an effect which is contrary to our international obligations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that is the basis of his argument, then the Minister has just said that nothing in Clause 3(2) will have any effect. I cannot speak for the noble Viscount, but it is certainly not the intention of those of us on this side who seek to support the British telecommunications industry, to write things into legislation. The legislation is being brought forward by the Government and the necessity to protect the British telecommunications industry only
440
arises from the change from a public monopoly to a private limited company, which is a private monopoly and which has different obligations—obligations to its shareholders rather than to national interests. If the noble Lord's objection is to writing things into the legislation, then he should withdraw the Bill rather than attack those who seek to improve it.
Lord Morris: Before my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, answers that point, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the very important paragraph (e) in subsection (2) of Clause 3, which is very sensitively drafted. It reads:
"to enable such persons to establish and maintain a leading position in the field of telecommunications".
Of course, that embraces the manufacturing industry. The Bill suggests that the manufacturing industry in this country has itself failed to maintain and establish a leading position in this particular field. If any member of your Lordships' Committee seriously considers that the inclusion in a Bill of a clause which fundamentally expresses a most noble wish will create, or help to create, and establish a leading position in the field of communication, then, with the greatest respect, he has another think coming. However, this clause assists the manufacturing industry, and I would suggest that that is quite enough for this Bill.
Lord Weinstock: If the noble Lord, Lord Morris, wants to find some words which have no meaning, he certainly identifies a good paragraph:
"to maintain and promote effective competition between persons engaged in commercial activities"—
I apologise; I have read the wrong paragraph. It is getting very late; it is a consequence of having listened so closely to the answers of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, which are very bamboozling and entirely beside the point. I should have read paragraph (e):
"to enable such persons to establish and maintain a leading position in the field of telecommunications".
According to the definitions in Clause 4, to say that all the people engaged in telecommunications are:
"to establish and maintain a leading position"
is absolutely absurd terminology.
Lord Cockfield: The noble Lord is the best possible illustration of the legal maxim:
"No case—abuse the plaintiff's attorney".
Lord Weinstock: The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is certainly an authority on matters of abuse.
Viscount Trenchard: In withdrawing this amendment at this stage, perhaps I may make a request and a couple of remarks to my noble friend.
Lord Weinstock: Why withdraw it?
Viscount Trenchard: I have spent my life in manufacturing industry and four years in Government, including a period when I was at the Department of Industry. I have not the smallest doubt that we are less French than the French, and that in a number of cases we have not given our manufacturing industry the same degree of support as other countries.

441
There has been a benefit of the extremely tough position in which we have left parts of that industry—they have become extremely efficient. But if volume is now to recover, as a great trading nation we have got to try—although we shall not always succeed—to provide not just a free market and free competition but a fair competitive opportunity.
I do not believe that my noble friend has in any way answered the purposes of this amendment. I am afraid that, unless he can assure me that he will communicate with me between now and the Report stage, I intend to move a similar amendment, possibly reworded, at the Report stage.
I want briefly to deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Morris. In moving this amendment I mentioned that I had carefully read Clause 3(2)(b), (e) and (h), but I still do not think that this fully meets the total need in the world as it is. With every other country's telecommunications industry still in a very strong monopoly position, I believe that one of the main functions of the Secretary of State responsible and of the director general is that they should do their very best to ensure a fair trading opportunity for British manufacturing industry. In giving warning, therefore, of my intent to table an amendment again at Report stage, I would at this late hour beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Spens Lord Spens had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 53:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to encourage the development of long-term telecommunications policies for the United Kingdom;").
The noble Lord said: I hope to give a little cheer to my noble kinsman the Chief Whip when I say that, in view of the lateness of this hour and the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 53. not moved.]
10.27 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to encourage the unbiased representation of the United Kingdom's interests in all international telecommunications fora.")
The noble Lord said: Briefly, because it is a separate amendment, may I say that for most of the last 80 years the only advisers on civil telecommunications to the Government have been in the Post Office who, among their other duties, have established a longstanding relationship at international conferences. Of latter years, of course, this function has transferred to British Telecom.
Recently private sector telecoms providers have become concerned that if United Kingdom representation remains from the same source there may become a bias towards the interests of British Telecom. These amendments seek to require the Secretary of State and the director to ensure unbiased representation for the United Kingdom in international telecommunications in the future, and in particular in those sorts of conferences which are listed in Amendment No. 58A. I beg to move.
Lord Cockfield: I assume that the intention behind my noble friend's amendment is that the policy to be followed by the United Kingdom in international telecommunications organisations should represent the wider national interest and not merely the narrower interest of any one body or sector. The Government wholeheartedly endorse this policy. The Department of Trade and Industry is, in fact, already in the process of consulting telecommunications interests on the future arrangements for United Kingdom representation in the international organisations, which are mainly inter-Governmental. The basis of these arrangements must be that there should be adequate consultation within the United Kingdom on the policies to be followed; and that where governmental or regulatory policy issues are involved, or where there are difficult conflicts of interest, Government itself should, where appropriate, normally lead or at least determine the line to be taken.
I accordingly agree with what I take to be the aim of my noble friend's amendment but I cannot agree that it will do anything to further this aim. The general duties in Clause 3 as drafted already require the Secretary of State and director to promote the interests of users, effective competition and so on. The policies that we follow internationally must have regard for these duties, which means in effect that they must have regard for all the various national interests. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept that the intention of his amendment is already met by Clause 3 of the Bill as drafted.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for those helpful remarks, and I look forward to things evolving in the way he described. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to endure the allocations and assignments of the radio frequency spectrum are fairly administered with a view to promoting efficient usage and equitable access;").
The noble Lord said: It is important that civil users of the radio spectrum be given the same degree of protection and encouragement through Oftel as the users of wired services. The RRD, as we heard earlier, moved from the Post Office to the Home Office in 1969 and to the Department of Trade and Industry in this year. My noble friend said earlier that he thought that that is where they should stay for a time. That is one of the suggestions in this amendment: that they really ought to come to Oftel, where they get a broader base and, one hopes, a more general approach on the lines of the remarks of my noble friend in relation to the last amendment that I moved.
The problem has been that all this century the Radio Regulatory Department has found constant reasons for not allocating what were originally called wavelengths. They were not prepared to issue wavelengths to the Marconi company in 1921; and more recently, in 1947, they said that there would be no radio frequencies available for a second television channel, independent television, independent sound

443
broadcasting and so on. One could go on with a whole series of examples of a body of people who have been narrowly based in their approach and who have been slow to give advantage to those people who are seeking to develop this splendid whole world of telecommunications in which there are so many opportunties both for this country and for the companies within it. I trust that my noble friend will give proper consideration to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Shaughnessy: In view of the general dissatisfaction that appears to have been experienced in the past on the allocation of radio frequencies, and in view of the admonishment of the noble Lord, the Chancellor the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Cockfield, that the duties of the Secretary of State and the director should be strictly defined. I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as an appropriate inclusion among the duties of the Secretary of State and the director general. I urge Her Majesty's Government, if not to accept this amendment as drafted at least to provide for the inclusion of the intention in this legislation in some fashion.
Lord Glanusk: The cable companies and the telecommunications companies will both need frequencies for microwave links, and it is therefore essential that the duration of these licences should be co-ordinated with the telecommunications licence or with the cable licence. I therefore also support this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: The Government certainly appreciate the need for the radio frequency spectrum to he so managed that efficient usage of the spectrum is promoted. We also recognise that in allocating frequencies between different types of radio service and between different users there is a need to avoid appearing to favour one above another for no good reason.
However, it is not immediately obvious that the amendment moved by my noble friend is an appropriate way of ensuring that this happens. Questions of radio frequency allocation and the licensing of radio are dealt with under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, as I described earlier to my noble friend, and not under Parts II and III of the Bill, to which Clause 3 duties apply. I fully appreciate from what has been said in moving this amendment that the director general should have a role in frequency allocation, and that is a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
We must now consider what the present amendment might achieve in practice. I am afraid that the answer is: not a lot! I regret this, because the Government are certainly keen, when exercising their functions under Parts II and III of the Bill, that the Secretary of State and the director should be seen to be paying attention, where it is relevant for them to do so, to the implications for the management of the radio frequency spectrum, both in decisions they have taken in regard to telecommunications and licensing questions and, in the case of the director, in the advice
444
that he gives to the Secretary of State under Clause 50 of the Bill.
As regards the director, it is not at all clear how, if the amendment were accepted, he could exercise his powers under the Bill to ensure the fair administration of something for which the Secretary of State rather than he is responsible and which, in any case, is administered under a different Act. The Secretary of State, for his part, administers the spectrum by virtue of his powers and duties under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, to which this amendment simply could not apply.
That being said, the Government expect the director to exercise his powers in a way which will ensure that his actions are compatible with the objective of efficient spectrum usage and the need to promote competition in the provision of radio telecommunications services. Having listened to the supporters of this amendment, I feel that it may be sensible to make it clear on the face of the Bill, possibly in Clause 3 itself, that the Secretary of State and the director should have regard to the effective use of the radio spectrum, which is a very scarce resource, in exercising their powers under Parts II and III.
Having said that, I should like to take this possibility away for thought and discussion with a view to tabling an amendment on Report. The amendment moved by my noble friend would not impinge on the administration of the Wireless Telegraphy Act as he appears to intend that it should. I am afraid that it is therefore defective, and I hope that with that assurance he will look at it and see fit to withdraw it.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that. I shall read with care what he said as well as accept the remarks that he made towards the end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) to promote adequate training, safety conditions and consultative procedures in relation to the employees of such persons;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move that Amendment No. 57 be included in the Bill. The reason for making this proposition is because it seems to me that it would be quite wrong that a clause of the nature of Clause 3(2), which lays down certain objectives, deals with consumers, deals with manufacturers, deals with research, with competition and with all other broad matters of that sort, should not anywhere mention employees. So I should like to submit to your lordships that if we are going to have a clause of this kind, we ought to include in it some reference to employees.
It could be argued, and no doubt would be by Ministers on the basis of arguments previously brought forward in response to similar amendments, that this is the sort of thing that we would expect any reasonable employer to do. Yes, but so would be the case with many of the other things that are in Clause 3(2). I think that a degree of consistency is here required; a degree of completeness. I should like to submit that the way in which Amendment No. 57 is drafted in unexceptionable, it seeks to promote

445
adequate training, safety conditions and consultative procedures in relation to the employers of such persons.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should merely like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and to point out to the Committee how modest an amendment this actually is. We were criticised in moving Amendment No. 49 (which was about the wellbeing of the employees in the telecommunications industry) for moving something that was vague and all-embracing. Amendment No. 51, which was the next amendment on the subject, although it was not moved, was restricted to the stable level of employment throughout the telecommunications industry—still a tall order, your Lordships may think.
This present amendment, I should have thought, is the absolute minimum reference that could possibly be made to the all-important workforce in the telecommunications industry. If we are not to give recognition to the importance of training, safety conditions and consultative procedures—and there are further amendments about consultative procedures—then we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said, treating the employees in a totally different way from all the other considerations that have been included in Clause 2(3).
The Countess of Mar: I should like to support this amendment. The industry at present has an excellent record for training and for the care of its employees as regards the promotion of safety, and so on. In fact, people come from all over the world to British Telecom to go through their training programmes and to learn. I am sure that this happens with other manufacturers in the industry as well.
Lord Lyell: I welcome the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, moved the amendment and also the support he attracted from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. However, I think that they, and indeed your Lordships generally, would agree that on examining this amendment we see that it would add to the duties of the Secretary of State and the director. In our opinion, it adds matters to those duties which we regard as wholly inappropriate to include within Clause 3, for reasons which I shall set out.
May I begin with a small general point. The Government believe that on matters like training, safety and consultation with employees, their task is to establish a minimum framework within which those in industry, and particularly in the telecommunications industry—both employers and employees—can develop arrangements which are best suited to their own circumstances. We do not feel that it is entirely clear why a special duty upon the Secretary of State and the director is needed in relation to telecommunications. I can tell your Lordships that specific arrangements already exist to provide the statutory framework which the Government consider necessary for training and safety at work. To add the duty which is proposed in the amendment we believe would simply cut across the existing arrangements.
As regards existing consultation, the Government's position is set out in this consultation document on the European Community's proposals, published in the
446
autumn of 1983. We are firmly committed to the principles of employee involvement but we think it should be introduced on a voluntary basis. For this reason therefore there is no role for the Secretary of State or the director in this particular field.
Lord Ezra: We on these Benches attach very great importance to this question. It may be that the wording is something that can be changed. I should like to feel that, in order to try to expedite proceedings and not put this matter to the vote, at least we could get an assurance from the noble Lord that further consideration would be given to introducing into some other part of the Bill assurances that the very high standards so far maintained by British Telecom under their present status will be continued in the future and that endeavours will be made to that end.
Lord Lyell: I will certainly guarantee that we will examine what the noble Lord has said; but I would not go any further than that.
Lord Ezra: On that basis, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 58A not moved.]
10.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall remove from the Director and the Secretary of State the duty to treat the national interest as the paramount consideration.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is self-explanatory. It seeks to ensure that the director and the Secretary of State have the duty to treat the national interest as the paramount consideration. I should have thought this would be immediately acceptable to the Government: in fact one wonders why this consideration has been omitted from the Bill. In the British Telecommunications Act of 1981, which was sponsored with a very considerable flourish by the Government, this consideration was very clearly set out in Section 6(2). It reads:
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Corporation, give to it such directions of a general character as to the exercise by it of its powers as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite in the national interest."
Why is there not a similar provision in this Bill? Does the national interest no longer matter? Is it now of no concern? Should it be given no priority? What is the objection to having a clause of this kind? I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, in the national interest as well as in the interest of the time at which this House adjourns, will, in order to avoid any further argument and to encourage his Chief Whip to adopt a benevolent countenance in view of the time of night, immediately accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Is it not covered in Clause 3(1) and (2), particularly paragraph (a) of subsection (2)?
Lord Cockfield: There are many instances where the test of the national interest or the public interest,

447
which is much the same thing—the two phrases tend to be interchanged—is the proper approach, but not in this particular case. Our objective here—and we are dealing with Clause 3—is to create an effective, clear-cut, regulatory system where everyone, customer or supplier, knows just where he stands and where rights and duties are defined as clearly as they can be. That is why Clause 3 goes into such detail. That is why we have spent so much time, both in this House and in another place, both on these Benches and on the Benches opposite, in ensuring that we have got Clause 3 right.
No one—least of all noble Lords opposite—could accuse the Opposition of failing to subject Clause 3 to the most searching scrutiny. I do not in any way criticise that. On the contrary, I believe it is the right way to proceed. This is precisely why the present amendment is unacceptable. In place of the careful definition of rights and obligations embodied in Clause 3, there would, in effect, be substituted as paramount a test of the national interest. Unfortunately, the national interest is not definable and it tends to reflect the personal views of the individual making the judgment.
In this instance, it would be the Secretary of State or the director general. I do not in any way suggest that those judgments would be politically motivated; but what they would do is to substitute uncertainty for certainty, subjectivity for objectivity. While I entirely accept the noble Lord's good intentions, I hope that he will agree with me that this is not the right place to deploy them.
There are one or two instances where the national interest is, in effect, written into the Bill; for example, where we are dealing with national security or with relations with the government of a country or of a territory outside the United Kingdom. The noble Lord will find such a reference in, for example. Clause 87(1). But if we are looking at Clause 3—and this is an amendment to Clause 3—I think that the right way to proceed is the way in which, together in this Committee, both sides have endeavoured to lay down the rights and obligations in a very clear and specific fashion which will be understood by everybody.
Lord Weinstock: Has the noble Lord the Minister noted that this Committee has spent some 20 hours looking at 64 amendments to understand this clear and precise clause to which he has three or four times made reference in his last reply?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, and the noble Lord is entirely confirming what I said; that we have spent a very long time ensuring that Clause 3 is right. He himself has contributed to that discussion; I am most grateful to him for doing so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I do not find the explanation of the noble Lord the Minister at all satisfactory. He rather brushed off the reference to the national interest and to Section 6(2) of his Government's own Act of 1981.
It may be that the national interest is not of paramount consideration when considering this
448
particular clause. But speaking, I believe, on behalf of most Members of this Committee, I consider that the national interest is of paramount importance in any legislation which we pass through this House. I therefore give notice that I shall return to the question of the national interest at the Report stage of this Bill. I trust that when I suggest a new place to insert this intention, I shall carry the noble Lord with me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 4, leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble Lord said: It may be to the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 61:
Amendment No. 61: Page 5, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
The latter part of Clause 4(1), following paragraph (d), has an addition to Section 12(1) of the 1981 Act, which seems to be saying the same thing. The first part of subsection (1), to the end of paragraph (d), is exactly the same in the 1981 Act as it is in this Bill.
It is suggested that this extra part is superfluous. Apparatus must itself either be a system or a part of a system, and the additional part is really quite confusing. In fact, one wonders almost whether it was not added deliberately in order to confuse. I therefore suggest that that part of the subsection is not necessary.
With regard to Amendment No. 61, I suggest that Clause 4(5) is incomprehensible and is therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I briefly comment, in favour of Amendment No. 61, that the subsection in question really is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to put provisions of this kind, with this measure of unintelligibility, on the statute book. I tried out this subsection on a couple of Law Lords and neither of them knew what it meant.
It is quite idle to argue that, "One has ministerial assurances. There are Notes on Clauses. The Minister said it meant this"; because when one gets into a court of law, one is now allowed to refer to any of those points. I do not know what subsection (5) means; I have tried to understand it. There is a mouse in it somewhere and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can find it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: So far as Amendment No. 60 is concerned, the need for the tailpiece to Clause 4(1) arises because a single piece of apparatus may not be a system. One example which may show the need for this provision is the following. Supposing that an entrepreneur decides to connect a wire from an internal video system used by an hotel owner to convey video programmes to his guests' rooms to the local cable company's system, so that the entrepreneur could convey the cable company's programmes to the hotel guests without the permission of the cable operator and without paying him. All he would have to do is to connect a wire.
The wire by itself would not comprise a system because it is too simple; it is just a straightforward wire. Therefore, if we did not include this tailpiece to

449
Clause 4(1), when found out the entrepreneur would claim that he was not running an unlicensed system because he was using a single piece of apparatus. Perhaps that would be sufficient for tonight on the tailpiece to Clause 4(1).
So far as Clause 4(5) is concerned, I must say I am sorry to hear that it is thought to be so complicated. The idea is that indirect connection is not to be connection for the purposes of this Bill because the licensing system is to control connection. If you are going to include indirect connection with connection, the licensing system is unnecessarily complicated. What Clause 4(5) is saying is that if A and B are connected together only in respect of a connection to a third system, system C, then they are indirectly connected, and one does not require to consider that for the purposes of connection. This, I must say, seems a simple idea, but it may well seem simple at an early hour in the morning rather than at this hour at night. I think the noble Lord will find that if this provision is deleted the licensing system will become a great deal more complicated than it need be.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I would also thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I think it is intriguing that the judges south of the Border cannot understand Clause 4(5) and the judges north of the Border can. However, I shall read with care what my noble and learned friend has said. I reserve the right to come back on Report. Though it was quite a simple explanation that my noble and learned friend gave, I suspect that there are other hidden traps that we might unearth between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that that must be the right note to end on this evening. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  M.6 MOTORWAY: GRAVELLY HILL RESURFACING
  M.6 MOTORWAY: GRAVELLY HILL RESURFACING